Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/23450/2017 of RAMESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 28 December 2017
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-23450-2017 (RAMESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHWP-23450-2017
WP-23450-2017(RAMESHWAR PRASAD MISHRAVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)Jabalpur, Dated :28-12-2017Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State.IA No.18458/2017 and IA No.18461/2017 are taken up and allowed.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's onlineapplication for absorption or for choice posting was entertained which isevident from Annexure P/2. Petitioner submitted choice for twentydifferent places, however, in resultant entry Annexure P/4, the number ofchoice is shown as "1" and in another entry '0' is given under the head"Number of Choice Number of Post". Dr. Shrivastava submits that the saidfinding Annexure P/4 runs contrary to the absorption application AnnexureP/2. Petitioner intends to prefer a detailed off-line application for thisgrievance which may be directed to be decided by Commissioner of PublicInstructions, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal.Shri Vaibhav Tiwari has no objection.Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner toprefer a detailed off-line application alongwith the copy of this order to theCommissioner of Public Instructions, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. In turn, theCommissioner is directed to decide the said application by a reasoned order Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State.IA No.18458/2017 and IA No.18461/2017 are taken up and allowed.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's onlineapplication for absorption or for choice posting was entertained which isevident from Annexure P/2. Petitioner submitted choice for twentydifferent places, however, in resultant entry Annexure P/4, the number ofchoice is shown as "1" and in another entry '0' is given under the head"Number of Choice Number of Post". Dr. Shrivastava submits that the saidfinding Annexure P/4 runs contrary to the absorption application AnnexureP/2. Petitioner intends to prefer a detailed off-line application for thisgrievance which may be directed to be decided by Commissioner of PublicInstructions, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner toprefer a detailed off-line application alongwith the copy of this order to theCommissioner of Public Instructions, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. In turn, theCommissioner is directed to decide the said application by a reasoned orderin accordance with law within 15 days therefrom. The outcome shall becommunicated to the petitioner.
The petition is disposed of without expressing any view on merits.
(SUJOY PAUL)JUDGE
YS