Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Siya Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 November, 2017
W.P. No. 3148 of 2013
1
02/11/2017
Shri S.R. Tamrakar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Shivendra Pandey, learned
Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1
to 3/State.
Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Heard.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.02.2013 (Annexure P/9) passed by the respondent No.2 - Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa and the order dated 10.02.2012 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No.3
- Collector, Sidhi, whereby, the petitioner who was earlier appointed as Gram Rozgar Sahayak upon rejection of candidature of private respondent No. 6 on not fulfilling the desired qualification as is prescribed under the circular issued of the State Government dated 10 th November, 2009, has been held to be eligible for appointment and consequent to an appeal filed by the private respondent No.6, the Collector, W.P. No. 3148 of 2013 2 Sidhi has allowed such appeal as a consequence of which, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak has been terminated.
It is contention of the petitioner that the qualification which are prescribed for appointment as Gram Rozgar Sahayak are that; a candidate should have between 18 to 35 years of age, should be possessed Higher Secondary Examination under 10+2 Scheme or any equivalent examination and besides this he should have possessed Diploma in Computer from all Universities recognized by the UGC or Diploma from all Open Universities recognized by UGC or Diploma Level Examination from DOEACC or Modern Office Management Course from Govt. Polytechnic College. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the certificate produced by the respondent No.6 as is contained in Annexure PR/15 from one Orbit Group of Education, professing itself to be an ISO 9001-2008 Certified Organization having registered office at Delhi to point out that such certificate is not recognized qualification as is prescribed vide W.P. No. 3148 of 2013 3 Circular dated 10.11.2009 and, therefore, the respondent No.6 was ineligible for appointment, but this fact has been overlooked by the Additional Collector while passing the impugned order Annexure P/3 and this fact is also overlooked by the Commissioner and, therefore, this Court needs to show its indulgence by setting aside such orders passed by the Additional Collector and Commissioner, Rewa.
Shri Shivendra Pandey, learned Government Advocate on the other hand
submits that all these documents as have been filed now were not produced before the Collector and, therefore, the Collector has not erred in passing the impugned order.
Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 on the other hand submits that there was no such prescribed qualification either in the advertisement or in the scheme to show that some specific kind of computer qualification was required for appointment as Gram Rozgar Sahayak and in fact the respondent No.6 was having proficiency in computer and, therefore, he was fit to be appointed as Gram Rozgar Sahayak and has W.P. No. 3148 of 2013 4 been rightly appointed in terms of the order passed by the Additional Collector, Sidhi.
After hearing the arguments and on going through the documents, it is apparent that there is specific provision as to the qualification which is required to be possessed by the prospective candidate for appointment on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. Admittedly, the respondent No.6 does not possess prescribed qualification from a recognized institute in computer application as has been prescribed in para 2(b) (one) Clause I to IV and since the respondent No.6 does not possess any of these qualification, the Additional Collector, who is the appellate authority was expected to know the prescribed qualification and should have at best call for the records from the appointing authority to apprise himself of the requirement of the qualification prescribed by the authority for such post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak and, therefore, the contention of learned Government Advocate that the qualification as has been prescribed by the State Government was not brought before the Additional Collector is of no help and deserves to be rejected and is rejected.
W.P. No. 3148 of 2013 5As far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that he possessed the Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, Bhopal besides the mandatory qualification of 10+2, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner has wrongly been set aside by the authorities below i.e. the Collector and the Commissioner overlooking the fact that respondent No.6 does not fulfill the requirement of the circular dated 10.11.2009 and he is not eligible to be appointed. Thus, the impugned orders are set aside.
The petition succeeds and allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
C.C. as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE SJ Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA SUSHEEL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=c977557a40517e91c194aa2f63c46fac576a450ae4 20bd992c43041774186972, KUMAR JHARIYA serialNumber=9e4591e7ecb5fec40232719e9fd41a704295 cbbc51562fb82895f70fb291fec2, cn=SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2017.11.03 15:47:50 +05'30'