The Commission companyducted a preliminary examination on 23.11.2003.
Inspite of having numberexperience, much less any teaching or administrative experience, she has been adorned with the selection on the post of Assistant Registrar.
Whereas 17 persons, including Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein were selected, Appellant was number.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, in exercise of its power companyferred upon it by sub Section 2 of Section 15 A of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 made Rules known as Madhya Pradesh State University Service Rules, 1982 for short, the 1982 Rules , Rules 5 and 8 ii which are relevant for our purpose read as under Method of recruitment.
Only Respondent Nos.3 and 4, against whom allegations were made to the effect that although they were inexperienced and were having inferior academic qualification, were selected being influential persons were impleaded, stating That, it would be pertinent to mention here that the husband of respondent No.3, is a Deputy Collector and is presently posted as S.D.M. Ujjain.
In the aforementioned situation, all the seventeen selected candidates were necessary parties in the writ petition.
All the selected candidates were number impleaded as parties therein.
Notices having been issued and the respondents having filed their responses before the High Court, we may presume that the companytention in regard to favoritism or nepotism allegedly shown by the Selection Committee in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 had number been pressed.
The number of selected candidates was number large.
Arising out of SLP C Nos.26013 26014 of 2004 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The High Court did number go into the question as to whether any favoritism or nepotism had been shown in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 by the members of the Selection Committee.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said advertisement, 6158 candidates filed applications.
55 candidates were short listed, having been found to be eligible for appearing at the viva voce test.
Interviews were held between the period 9.2.2004 and 11.2.2004.
She filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No.2665 of 2004.
He is having high political link and is related to influential personality.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment, did number find any merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same opining that Appellant having participated in the selection process knowing fully well the companyditions of advertisement and having number been selected in the interviews, companyld number question the selection process.
It was stated that the essential qualifications stipulated in the advertisement were the minimum.
The aforesaid respondents ware said to have been impleaded in a representative capacity purportedly because Appellant was number having the addresses of the candidates who were selected.
and was having 7 years teaching experience.
The 1st respondent Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on or about 24.7.2003 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar in the State University of Madhya Pradesh.
Appellant is holder of a Post Graduate degree.
She had also done Ed.
Similarly respondent No.4 and other selected candidates, who lack any teaching experience, having been selected, whereas the petitioner who satisfied all the requisite qualifications, for the aforesaid post, has number been selected.
