Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

678
Madhya Pradesh PSC
application from eligible candidates. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 provides that selection of candidates for
the service shall be made by the Commission after interviewing them. The Commission is required by
Rule 12 of the Rules to forward to the appointing authority the names and other details of the candidates
whom they consider suitable duly arranged in order of preference. Rule 18 of the Rules requires the
authority to make appointment of officers included in the select list in the same order in which the
names of such officers appears in the list. Rule 21 provides that nothing in these Rules shall be
construed to limit or abridge the power of the Government to deal with the case of any person to
whom these Rules apply in such a manner as it appears to be just and equitable provided that the case
shall not be dealt with in any manner less favourable to him than that provided in these Rules. The
Rules have been considered from time to time and explained in all details. In V.K.Seth Vs. State of
M.P. (1980 M.P.L.J. 287) a Division Bench of this Court considering these Rules in so far as they deal
with direct appointment and held that the Authority of the Commission to make selection under Rule
11(1) arises when the requisition in this behalf is made by the Government. The Division Bench also
held that a selection made in the absence of a requisition would be without jurisdiction and would
serve no purpose. In the said case the respondent State under requisition for 4 posts for which the
selection has been made by the Commission. The Commission, however, besides sending the select
list containing 4 names, also sent a reserved list. After the advertisement and selection, a fifth vacancy
had arisen and the petitioner, in the aforesaid case, claimed his appointment to the said post as his
name was included at serial no.1 in the select list. The Division Bench did not appreciate the claim of
the petitioner and held that since the Government has not sent any requisition for the fifth vacancy and
as that post had not been advertised, the person included in the list recommended by the Commission
could not claim any right for appointment against a new vacancy. The reserve list, according to the
Division Bench only meant that for some reason or the other any one out of 4 candidates could not be
appointed to one of the 4 posts that were advertised, the petitioner had a chance of being appointed
to that post but the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the reserve list did not enable him to claim any
right for appointment to a post which was never advertised. The aforesaid decision was followed by
another Division Bench of this Court in Dr. B.P.Pawar and others Vs. State of M.P. and other (Misc.
Petition No.1368 of 1982, decided on 22 nd June, 1983). The following observations of the Division
Bench in this regard are relevant for purposes of this decision and are reproduced as under:-