--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 5765 / 2009 SYED SOHEL ALI S/O MUKTIYAR ALI & THREE OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MP & TWO OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 15/9/2011) The petitioners before this Court have filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by non issuance of interview call letter by the Joint Director, Health Services, Ujjain Division, Ujjain for the post of Stenographers. The contention of the petitioners is that an advertisement was issued on 23/1/09 inviting applications for 5 posts of Stenographers and the petitioners along with other large number of candidates submitted their applications. The contention of the petitioners is that they were holding requisite qualifications for the post of Stenographers, however, for the reasons best known to the respondents, the petitioners have not been called for interview. Learned --- 2 --- counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued before this court that the respondents while holding the process of selection have adopted a pick and choose method and have prepared a merit list by taking into account the marks obtained in 12th standard examination and in 10th standard examination. He has vehemently argued before this court that in some cases the respondents have taken into account the marks obtained in 10th standard examination and in some cases they have taken into account the marks obtained in 12th standard examination and therefore such a discriminatory attitude has resulted in denial of appointment to the petitioners. He has also argued before this court that under the provisions of the recruitment rules known as MP Public Health & Family Welfare Department Directorate of Health Services, Recruitment Rules, 1989, the respondents are required to hold a competitive examination as provided under Rule 6(1)(a) and the respondents have simply conducted the selection without holding written examination and therefore the selection conducted by the respondents is bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also --- 3 --- drawn the attention of this court towards the additional affidavit filed by the Joint Director, Health Services, Ujjain and his contention is that in respect of petitioner No.1 his candidature was turned down as he has produced a provisional certificate in respect of Shorthand Typing. He has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to issue interview call letter to the petitioners and to hold the process of interview afresh. He has prayed for quashing the entire process of selection. A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the State Government is that they have considered all the applications received for the post of Stenographers and after preparing a merit list based upon the marks received in the Higher Secondary Examination as well as in the Senior Secondary School Examination, they have invited persons strictly in consonance with the merit list. Respondents have further stated that the Rules provide for holding a process of selection and they have appointed the persons who were eligible as per the merit list prepared by them by holding an --- 4 --- interview. Learned counsel for the respondents have also stated that the petitioners have received less marks than the persons selected and therefore the question of setting aside the appointments does not arise. Learned counsel for the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and the matter is being disposed of at the motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that an advertisement was issued on 23/1/09. The respondents have selected as many as 5 persons for the post of Stenographers. Original record reveals that petitioner No.1 has received 56.60% marks in 10th Standard examination, petitioner No.2 has received 55.23% marks in 10th Standard examination, petitioner No.3 has received 54.77 % marks and petitioner No.4 has received 37% marks. The petitioners as they were having very low percentage and low position in the merit list, were not called for interview. The persons who have been selected have received 69.23%, 68.60%, 65.60%, 61.20% and 61.20% marks in the 10th standard examination. It is not a case where the respondents have taken into account the marks of 12th in respect of selected candidates. The marks of 10th standard in respect of selected candidates as well as in respect of the petitioners were looked into --- 5 --- while issuing the call letters and therefore the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have arbitrarily called persons for interview and have adopted a pick and choose method is not supported by any cogent material. The respondents have called persons for interview strictly in accordance with merit position based upon 10th standard examination. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a written examination should have been held in the matter, is also of no help to the petitioners. Rule 6 of MP Public Health & Family Welfare Department Directorate of Health Services, Recruitment Rules, 1989 provides for direct recruitment by competitive examination or by selection. Respondents, in the present case, have held a selection and after scrutinising all the applications and after a preparing merit list, they have selected persons on the basis of interview. No other statutory provision of law has been brought to the notice of this court which provides of written examination only and in absence of any such statutory provision of law, the method adopted by the respondents is in consonance with the statutory provisions as contained in the MP Public Health & Family Welfare Department Directorate of Health Services, Recruitment Rules, 1989 and therefore no case for interference is made out in the matter. The petitioners have made a statement in the writ petition that persons similarly situated like the petitioners were called for interview, but has not given any example nor record reflect that the --- 6 --- persons like petitioners were called for interview. The respondents have strictly adhered to the merit list prepared by them and persons who were appointed in the year 2009 are continuing to serve as Stenographers. This court does not find any reason to interfere with the process merely because the petitioners have challenged the same though they were less meritorious. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR