---1--- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH : INDORE Writ Petition No. 12499/2010(S) Dhannalal Sevre (Solanki) V/s The State of M.P. & others AND Writ Petition No. 12500/2010(S) Sukhdeo Malgaya V/s The State of M.P. & others ********************************************************** Shri L.C. Patne, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Mukesh Parwal, Dy GA for respondents 1, 2 & 3. None for respondent No.4, though served. ********************************************************** ORDER (10.8.2011) Per S.C. Sharma, J. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above cases were heard together and a common order is being passed. The facts of Writ Petition No.12499/2010(S) are narrated as under:- 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by his non selection to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Heerapur. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that less meritorious persons have been selected and the petitioner has not been awarded marks for possessing experience from ITI in respect of computer application and also for having experience as a mate for one year. The petitioner's contention is that an advertisement was issued on 10.11.09 inviting applications for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have submitted their applications for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The petitioner has further stated that by depriving the petitioner of marks under various heads, proper marking has not ---2--- been done and resultantly the respondent No.4 has been appointed. 4. Reply has been filed in the matter and the respondents have stated that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as mentioned in Column 2 (kh) of Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna and, therefore, as he was not having the eligibility criteria, as per the prescribed norms the appointment order has been issued in favour of the respondent No.4 and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 in spite of service of notice. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. The petitioner has not been awarded marks under the head of computer qualification and for having experience as mate. The relevant criteria under the Scheme reads as under:- l-dz- Ekkin.M vf/kdre vad 1. gk;j lsdzsa.M~h ijh{kk 10$2 esa izkIrkadksa dk izfr'kr ds cjkcj vad 100 2. (i) jkT; 'kklu }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk ls dEI;wVj lapkyu dk ikB~;dze mRrh.kZ gsrw ;k (ii) vkS?kksfxd izf'k{k.k laLFkk }kjk jkstxkjUeq[kh O;kolkf;d izf'k{k.k ;kstuk varxZr dEI;wVj ,Iyhds'ku] MkVk ,UV~h vkijsVj dkslZ esa izf'k{k.k izkIr 20 3. jkIV~h; jkstxkj xkjaVh ;kstuk esa lafonk ij vFkok esV ds :i esa ,d oiZ ls vf/kd vof/k dk dk;Z djus dk vuqHko 15 4. (1) vkS?kksfxd izf'k{k.k laLFkk (ITI) }kjk xzkeh.k baftfu;j ;kstuk esa 110 dk;Z fnol dk eslu@Iyacj O;olk; esa izf'kf{kr A (2) vkS?kksfxd izf'k{k.k laLFkk (ITI) }kjk jkstxkjUeq[kh O;kolkf;d izf'k{k.k ;kstuk varxZr ,dkmaVsalh] vkfdZVsDV vflLVsaV esa 6 ekg dkslZ esa izf'k{k.k izkIr (3) vkS?kksfxd izf'k{k.k laLFkk (ITI) ls M~kIV~lesu@losZ;j dk nks oihZ; izf'k{k.k izkIr 15 ;ksx & 150 7. The respondents have not assigned any reason for not awarding marks to the petitioner and the same has resulted in rejection of the candidature of the petitioner and appointment of ---3--- the respondent No.4. Resultantly, it is evident that the petitioner was not appointed on the post in question, because he has not been awarded marks by the respondents and, therefore, the entire process of selection to the extent it relates to petitioner and respondent No.4 is set aside and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to review the process of selection by awarding marks to the petitioner after taking in to account Anenxure-P/3 dated 17.32.2009 and Annexure-P/4 dated 23.11.2007. The aforesaid exercise of reviewing process of selection be concluded within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention that till the process of review is completed the respondent No.4 shall continue to work on the post he is holding for a period of 45 days. 8. In Writ Petition No.12500/2010(S) the respondent No.4 has not joined and, therefore, the question of setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4 does not arise. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to review the selection process after taking into account the certificates enclosed along with the writ petition. The aforesaid exercise of reviewing the process of selection be concluded within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid both the writ petitions are allowed. A copy of this order be tagged with the record of Writ Petition No. 12500/2010(S). (S.C. Sharma) J U D G E rcs*