•l;s« ^ L^^)M- 296'^r. II T^ MADHTA PBADES3 AmiMSSBATITC IEIBUNAL J&BA£Pl% BEHGH B_1_J:LW_2_ E_ I O.A. ao^t00.) op 1990 Ku« Se®iaGupfa D/o Shri Dulichand Gupta, Oceupation ix^ne^ aged about 23 yeai^, resident ofC/o Timal Wateh House, Na-i Sadajk, i^lgar?E ( M.P.) PEBC'ErpNEB 1-._I__1D S^te of Ma<ihya Pradesh throug^ Secretaiy Department of Gollegiate Education Taliabh Bhaws.n, gipPAI. » BESfcOIDEgT 1 ? ;^ HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURB CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Singlle Bench: Hon*ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Petitioner W, P.8. No. 296 OP 2005 Ku. Seeiaa Gupta Versus Respondent State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Sameer Behar, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for fhe State/respondent. ORAL ORDBR (24t«IJuly, 2006) 1. Pursuant to the advertisement issued for appomtaoLent on the post ofAssisteiit Professor ui Hiadi, the petitioner along wifh other siniilarly situated candidates, appUed for appotataient. The petitioner failed to get appoiatiueut. 2. Beio^g aggrieved, fhe petitioner filed fhis petition seeking declaration fhat fhe petitiouer be declared as appointed on fhe post ofAssistant Professor ia Hiadi, from fhe date when first list of selected caadidates was published. Leanied counsel appearing for fhe petitioner is not ia a position to poiat out, as to whefher aay persou who has got lesser niarks has been appointed. In absence of fhe said mforaiation, it caanot be held fhat the persous who got lesser raarks thaa the petitioner have been appoiated, which amounts to discrimiaation and arbitrarmess. 3. The State/respondent has produced aU fhe relevaat rcconls, even the select list dated 12.12.1989 aad aU the papers filed by fhe petitioner along wifh fhe appUcation. 4. On penisal of the papers, it is found fhat the petitioner has got 48.7% marks ia fhe merit list and the persous who have been appoiated fhey have got more marks fhan the petitioner. In addition, fhe petitioner has not filed any experience certificate also along with fhe appUcation foroi. Thus, fhis petition caaaot be entertaiaed at this stage, on the ground that it lacks sufficient material to prove case of fhe petitioner. 5. The appointaient has alrcady been niade m the year 1989. After a period of 16 years, direcfmg fhe State/respondent to appoiat as on that date would be fiitile exercise and that inay impose unnecessaiy burden on the fmaace of the Govemment, 6. For the reasons stated above, this petition is disndssed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^p i-TTt 1