@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction to direct the respondents to conduct the interview of the petitioner before the Junior Service Selection Board (for short "the Board") by constituting the same, if the constitution of the Board is not possible then the respondent-authorities may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer in terms of the order dated 3rd February, 1993 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short "the SAT), in O.A.No.530/1990.
The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that pursuant to the advertisement No.08/1985 issued by the Board,, the petitioner applied for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer. Written test was held on 25th December, 1989 and the petitioner was declared as successful in the list dated 20th January, 1990. It was further notified in Rojgar Aur Nirman that the interviews of the successful candidates would be held on 31st January, 1990 and 1st February, 1990. The petitioner though was successful, but did not receive the call letter for interview. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons filed an application being O.A.No.530/1990 before the SAT. The SAT by order dated 3d February. 1993 directed the respondent-authorities to hold interview for the applicants therein and if they were found successful, necessary appointment orders be issued and assign the seniority as the Board may recommend. In the meantime, the Board came to an end, however, an interview was conducted by the Rajya Yojana Mandal (for short "the Mandal") on 11th December, 1995 and the petitioner was found unsuccessful. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application being O.A.No. 1670/2000 on the 4th March, 2000 before the SAT claiming for the identical relief, as granted to the other applicants in O.A.No.530/1990. After dissolution of the SAT this application has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.(S) No.1905 of 2005.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the interview was held on the 11th December. 1995. The petitioner was informed after lapse of about four years that he was not found fit. The petitioner came to know that there were no vacant and sanctioned posts of Statistical Officer. Thus, without creating supernumerary posts the interview was conducted and, as such, the respondents may be directed to create supernumerary post of Statistical Officer and to appoint the petitioner against that post.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was interviewed along with other two persons on the 11th December, 1995 by the Mandal. Total mark obtained by the petitioner was 51.4% whereas the last person selected had obtained 62.5%. Accordingly, he was placed at S.No.34 in the main selection list and he was granted appointment. The petitioner was not found fit and, as such, he was not granted appointment. With regard to the grievance of the petitioner that the Mandal was not competent, the said grievance is not correct, as after discontinuation of the Board, the Mandal was competent to conduct the interview and make recommendations for appointment.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.
Be that as it may, pursuant to the order dated 3rd February, 1993 passed by SAT in O.A.No.530/1990, the petitioner was interviewed and in the interview, the petitioner could not obtain the proper marks, so as to obtain appointment. It appears that the other person, who was interviewed along with the petitioner, had obtained 62.5% marks and the petitioner got 51.4% marks. Accordingly, the other person was appointed and the petitioner could not be appointed.
Law on appointments is well settled that if a candidate is found unsuitable in the interview, he could not claim appointment as a matter of right. Even otherwise one can claim right to consideration in selection, but cannot claim right to appointment and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, particularly directing the respondents to create supernumerary post and to appoint the petitioner without having qualified marks in the interview. It is not for the High Court to direct the State Government to create supernumerary posts, as it involves financial implications and requirement of the post.
For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and looking from all angles, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief and, as such, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.
