GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 22-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[201 O] 12 S.C.R. 839 
GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 9227 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 22, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Contractual Teachers c 
(Conditions of Appointment and Service) Rules, 2001 -
r. 
5(4)(b) - Contractual teacher- Selection and appointment of 
- Allegation that no proper advertisement for reservation for 
ex-servicemen was issued, and near relatives of members of 
selection Committee appeared as candidates for selection -
D 
PIL by way of writ petition filed challenging the appointment 
- Quashing of the entire selection process - On appeal, held: 
Issue being a service dispute, PIL was not maintainable -
Alleged participation of near relatives in the selection process_ 
would not vitiate the entire selection process - OnJy the illegal 
E 
beneficiaries to be weeded out from the selection process -
It cannot be said that advertisement was so made so as to 
prevent ex-servicemen from applying - Persons selected 
have already put in 3 years of service - High Court did not 
properly balance the equities - Thus, order of High Court is 
quashed and selection proceedings are upheld - Public 
Interest Litigation - Equity. 
F 
The appellants were selected and accordingly 
appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak (contractual 
teachers) in Panchayat Schools under the provisions of 
G 
the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Contractual Teachers 
(Conditions of Appointment and Service) Rules, 2001. 
The said appointments were challenged in Public Interest 
Litigation by way of two writ petitions on the ground that 
839 
H 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A there was no proper advertisement for reservation for ex-
servicemen; and that the near relatives of the members 
of the selection committee appeared as candidates for 
selection respectively. The High Court allowed the writ 
petitions by quashing the entire selection process. The 
B appellants though not impleaded in either of the two writ 
petitions were affected by the decision of the High Court 
and they filed review petitions. The High Court dismissed 
the review petitions. Therefore, the appellants filed the 
instant appeals. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The dispute in the instant case is over 
selection and appointment which is a service matter. A 
PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. [Paras 14 and 
D 15) (848-A-B] 
1.2 The High Court while dismissing the review 
petitions stated that in view of the grave irregularity of 
allowing near relations to appear in the selection process, 
E the entire selection had been rightly set aside. This 
finding is a rather sweeping one as factually it appears 
that in W.P. (C) No.63/2002 none of the members of the 
selection committee allowed their near relatives to appear 
as candidates. The selection process had been struck 
down on the ground of presence of near relatives in WP 
F (C) No.1529/2001 alone and not in WP (C) No.63/2002. 
Even in WP (C) No.1529/2001 an order dated 10/12/2001, 
prior to the dismissal of the review petition, was made by 
the District Collector after conducting an inquiry that out 
of the three alleged cases of relatives of the selectors 
G being selected, two were not 'relatives' as defined under 
Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 
1993. 'JP' who was found to be a 'relative' of 'LS', a 
member of the District Panchayat, within the meaning of 
Section 40 was interviewed, but was never selected. This 
H was certified by the Chief Executive Officer of the District 
GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 841 
M.P. AND OTHERS 
Panchayat. [Para 23] [850-B-F] 
1.3 The alleged participation of near relatives in the 
selection process was not such a factor as to vitiate the 
entire selection process. Even if there were some illegal 
beneficiaries from the selection process, they should 
have been weeded out instead of striking down the entire 
selection process. [Para 24] (850-G] 
Charanjit Singh and Ors. vs. Harinder Sharma and Ors. 
(2002) 9 SCC 732; Union of India and Ors. v. Rajesh P. 
U.Puthuvalnikathu and Anr. (2003) 7 SCC 285, referred to. 
1.4 As regard the issue of selection and appointment 
of ex-servicemen as a reserved category, while in 
Mehagaon 5 ex-servicemen had been appointed out of a 
total of 9 applicants, in Raun none had been so 
appointed. If at all there was an issue with respect to the 
reservation policy of the ex-servic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.