Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 October, 2021
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 10216/2012
Parties Name SANJAY DATT DUBEY
VS.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION NO. 1293/2013
Parties Name KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH
VS.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Judgment delivered By HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether approved for
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioner: Shri H. K. Upadhyay and Shri Mantosh
Mishra, Advocates.
For Respondent/State : Smt. Priyanka Mishra, Govt.
Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Girish Kumar Shrivastava, (W.P No.1293/2013) Advocate.
For Private Respondents: Shri Udayan Tiwari, Advocate. (WP No.10216/2012) and Respondent no.5 WP 1293/2013 For Respondent No.6 : Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, Advocate.
(WP No.1293/2013)
Law laid down -
Significant paragraph -
number
(O R D E R )
23/10/2021
Both the petitions, i.e. W.P No.10216/2012 & W.P No.1293/2013 involve similar issues, therefore, they are decided by this common order.
1. Petitioner in W.P No.10216/2012 has filed this petition making a prayer for removal of respondents No. 6 to 2 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013 10 from post of Patwari in compliance of letter No.158/Exam- 10/12, dated 03.04.2012. Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh wrote a letter to all Collectors of State in compliance of order dated 21.01.2011 and 8.4.2011 passed in W.P. No. 841/2010 (Ved Prakash Sharma vs State of M.P.) and W.P. No. 2871/2010 (Ajay Pratap Singh vs State of M.P.) giving following directions:-
(1) Diploma Certificates issued by Dr. C.V. Raman University before 11.02.2005 is recognized. (2) Diploma Certificates issued after 11.02.2005 till reorganization of University under Section 2(f) of University Grants Commission Act, 1956, is not recognized. (3) State Government vide its memorandum No.1333/1734/2009/7/4, dated 26.08.2009 has granted time till 30.11.2009 to produce Diploma Certificates. Diploma Certificates which were produced after 30.11.2009 are not recognized.
2. On basis of aforesaid directions, Collectors were directed to give opportunity of hearing to the candidates and pass appropriate orders.
3. Similarly in linked matter, W.P No.1293/2013 prayer is made by petitioner for quashing order dated 8.11.2012 by which representation of petitioner for giving him appointment and cancellation of appointment of respondent nos.5 to 14 was dismissed. Petitioner has also made a prayer for 3 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013 quashing of order dated 6.12.2012 by which appointment was given to private respondent nos.5 to 14 as Patwari.
4. Petitioners in these petitions have raised a singular issue that private respondents had obtained educational qualification after cut-off date, therefore, their appointment is bad and same may be quashed.
5. Brief facts in these petitions are as under:-
Professional Examination Board has issued an advertisement for conducting Examination for appointment of Patwaris in Revenue Department under Land Records and Settlement. Last date for filling examination forms was 7.7.2008. As per the Examination Rules of 2008, educational qualification required for appointment to post of Patwari was as under:-
"1.8 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk% gk;j lsdaMªh ;k gkbZ Ldwy ¼10$2½ mRrh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gS lkFk gh 'O' Level certification from DOEACC/IETE ;k UGC ls ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofon~;ky; }kjk lapkfyr@iathd`r@ekU;rk izkIr@lEc) laLFkk ls 1 o"khZ; dEI;wVj fMIyksek ¼DCA½ ;k dEI;wVj esa mPp f'k{kk izkIr gksuk pkfg;sA In W.P No.10216/2012 respondent nos.6 to 10 namely; Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Digvijay Singh Rajpoot, Jyoti Nigam, Anuj Jaiswal and Mahendra Kumar Mishra, had obtained Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from C. V. Raman University on 17.10.2008.4 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013
Respondent nos.6 to 10 of W.P No.10216/2012 are also impleaded as respondent nos.6 to 10 in W.P No.1293/2012. Other private respondents in W.P No.1293/2013 i.e. respondent nos.5, 11 to 14 are Deep Kumar Pandey, Sumita Shrivastava, Kshipra Tiwari, Varsha Asati and Jyoti Paroha.
Deep Kumar Pandey had obtained Diploma Certificate from Global University, Nagaland on 2.9.2008 and rest of the respondents, namely Sumita Shrivastava, Kshipra Tiwari, Varsha Asati and Jyoti Paroha had obtained Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from Makhanlal Chaturvedi, University, Bhopal on 8.9.2008.
6. It is submitted by counsel appearing for the petitioners that no action was taken by State pursuant to directions issued by the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement Madhya Pradesh. Services of private respondents are to be terminated as they have acquired specific eligibility that is Diploma in Computer after the cut-off date by a non- recognized institution. On basis of aforesaid submissions, prayer is made to direct official respondents to take action in accordance with law against private respondents.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that it is settled law that a candidate applying for appointment to a particular post must have acquired educational qualification as prescribed in Rules on the cut-off date. Result of 5 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013 candidate must have been declared before cut-off date. Mark-sheet may be issued to such candidates at a later date but declaration of result of the candidate has to be before cut-off date. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2000) 5 SCC 262, Shankar K. Mandal and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2003) 9 SCC 519, Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 and Alka Ojha vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2011) 9 SCC 445.
8. On strength of aforesaid judgments, it was argued by learned counsel for petitioners that respondents had acquired eligible educational qualification after cut-off date, therefore, their appointment was bad in law and Revenue authorities has wrongly considered the issue and permitted them to do training and thereafter appointed as Patwari.
9. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that petitioners were not successful candidate, therefore, they have no locus standi to file the writ petitions. It was further submitted that Government had extended the period for submission of Diploma Certificate and respondents had submitted their Diploma Certificate on the extended date. It is further submitted that respondents had appeared in the 6 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013 examination and had qualified the examination but mark- sheet was issued to them later on, therefore, no fault can be found on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel for respondents also argued that respondents were granted appointment pursuant to order issued by this Court in writ petitions. Said orders were not challenged before the Apex Court and same has become final, therefore, writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, AIR 2012 SC 3281, held as under:-
"11. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (See: Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal & Ors., 1993(1) SCC (Supp.) 714; and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1817)."
12. This Court in the case of Smt. Renu Devi vs. Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena reported in 7 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013 2016 (4) MPLJ 223, has considered the scope of cut-off date vis-a-vis acquisition of qualification and held that acquisition of qualification would be considered from the date of declaration of result and from issuance of mark-sheet. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.269/2016 vide order dated 30.8.2016 confirmed the aforesaid judgment in case of Smt. Mangesh vs. The Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena and others. As per the said judgment passed by this Court, it was held that qualification would be reckoned from the date of declaration of result. Division Bench of this Court in Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar and others vs. State of M.P. and others, vide its order dated 8.3.2011 passed in W.P No.2871/2010(S) has clarified last date for acquiring qualification in case of Patwari Examination 2008. Division Bench held that last date for acquiring the qualification is 7.7.2008 and circular issued by State Government dated 27.7.2009 and 26.8.2009 issued by Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement were only in respect of those candidates who already acquired the qualification prior to cut-off date of 7.7.2008. Such candidates could submit their Degree Certificate/Diploma Certificate issued by particular institution till 30.11.2009.
13. Considering the aforesaid law laid down by Apex Court and by this Court, case of petitioners as well as respondents have to be examined on the touch-stone whether private 8 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013 respondents had acquired educational qualification i.e. Diploma in Computer Application before the cut-off date of 7.7.2008 and whether their result was declared prior to it or not. Those private respondents whose Diploma results were declared prior to cut-off date of 7.7.2008 can submit their Diploma Certificate till 30.11.2009.
14. In this case respondents Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Digvijay Singh Rajpoot, Jyoti Nigam, Anuj Jaiswal and Mahendra Kumar Mishra obtained Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application in Session 2007-2008 and their mark-sheet was issued on 17.10.2008 which is after the cut-off date mentioned in Patwari Examination 2008.
15. Now it is to be seen whether declaration of result of these respondents was prior to 7.7.2008 or not.
16. State Govt. in its reply has also not stated that result of private respondents have been declared prior to 7.7.2008. In their reply only bald statement is made that respondents appeared in the examination prior to 7.7.2008, therefore, even if mark-sheet is issued to them after cut-off date, therefore, they have acquired requisite educational qualification prior to cut-off date. No specific date of appearance in examination and declaration of result is mentioned in reply of State Government. In view of above stand of State the petitions cannot be accepted. 9 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013
17. Respondent nos.6, 7 & 10 had filed their additional return and had stated that their result was declared prior to 7.7.2008. In support of their contention they had filed copy of order passed in W.A No.441/2013. Reliance was placed in para-11 of said order wherein it was mentioned that respondents had acquired qualification of Diploma in Computer Application much before cut off date and result was declared on 5.7.2008 and mark-sheet/certificates were issued subsequently. Private respondents were not party in W.A No.441/2013 and reply was filed to justify eligibility qualification for one Vijay Kumar Kshetre and private respondents will not get benefit of reply in aforesaid Writ Appeal as respondents have failed to demonstrate that they are identically situated with Vijay Kumar Kshetre. Respondents had failed to file any documents to show that their result was declared prior to 7.7.2008.
18. Respondent no.8 Jyoti Nigam has stated that her case was considered by Collector as per law laid down in Bhupendrapal Singh (supra) and no irregularity or illegality is found in her appointment. Dr. C. V. Raman University has been declared to be competent to issue Diploma Certificate, therefore, writ petition be dismissed. 10 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013
19. Respondent Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in W.P No.10216/2012 failed to show that result has been declared prior to cut-off date i.e. 7.7.2008. Mark-sheet has been issued to said respondents on 8.9.2008 which is after the cut-off date. Respondent Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 had not acquired educational qualification i.e. One year Diploma in Computer Application prior to cut-off date (7.7.2008).
20. Respondent no.5 Deep Kumar Pandey in W.P No.1293/2013 had obtained Diploma from Global University, Nagaland on 2.9.2008 after cut-off date and other respondents i.e. respondent nos.11 to 14 namely; Sumita Shrivastava, Kshipra Tiwari, Varsha Asati and Jyoti Paroha had obtained Diploma on 8.9.2008 from Makhanlal Chaturvedi University, Bhopal after the cut-off date of 7.7.2008.
21. In view of same respondent nos.5, 11,12,13 & 14 had not acquired educational qualification before the cut-off date.
22. Respondent no.6 Rakesh Kumar Gupta had filed W.P No.9829/2010 (S) which was disposed of by this Court on 16.11.2010 in terms of order passed in W.P No.6906/2010(S) Indra Kumar Borban and another vs. State of M.P and others. In said writ petition, Diploma Certificate issued by Dr. C. V. Raman University was held to be valid and it was 11 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013 held that Dr. C. V. Raman University is empowered to award Graduate, Degree and Certificates and petition was allowed and State was directed to verify the certificate issued by University in accordance with law. In case of Indra Kumar (supra) issue was regarding validity of Diploma Certificate issued by Dr. C. V. Raman University and said writ petition does not consider the issue of acquisition of educational qualification before cut-off date. Petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Gupta i.e. W.P No.9829/2010 (S) was allowed in light of Indra Kumar (supra) W.P No.6906/2010(S). Said order will not come in way of this Court in deciding the issue whether private respondents had acquired desired qualification before cut-off date as said issue was not in question in W.P No.9829/2010(S) or in W.P No.6906/2010 (S).
23. Similar is case of respondent nos.7 & 10 Digvijay Singh and Mahendra Kumar Mishra. Said respondents also filed writ petition before this Court bearing W.P No.12430/2010(S). Said writ petition was also disposed off in line with order passed by this Court in case of Indra Kumar (supra).
24. In view of same, said respondents will not derive any benefit from orders passed by this Court in Writ Petitions filed by them.
12 WP No.10216/2012 & 1293/2013
25. As private respondents did not have educational qualification prescribed in Patwari Examination 2008 on cut- off date i.e. on 7.7.2008, therefore, their appointment is bad in law. Respondent no.1 is directed to take action in case of private respondents in W.P No.10216/2012 and W.P No,1293/2013 accordingly.
26. In view of same, writ petitions filed by petitioners are partly allowed.
27. A copy of this order be retained in W.P No.1293/2013.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2021.10.25 12:06:51 +05'30'