Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Bharat Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-13003-2018
(RAM BHARAT VERMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 20-06-2018
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Govt. counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners are aggrieved by the
sh
action/inaction of the respondents while not granting
permission/sanction for appointment on the post of Shala Samvida e ad Grade-3 even after duly qualifying Eligibility Exam. 2008 conducted by the M.P. Professional Exam Board, Bhopal.
Pr At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners referred the a order dated 01.05.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench, Principal hy Seat, Jabalpur in a bunch of writ petitions in which W.P.No.5671/2018 ad (Kamal Singh and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others is leading case) and seeks parity.
M Learned Govt. counsel for the State could not dispute the of passing of said order and factum of parity.
Heard.
rt From perusal of the order dated 01.05.2018 referred above, it ou appears that the said order has been passed while placing reliance over C the judgment by the Writ Court in the case of Manmohan Mathur and Others Vs. State of M.P. in W.P.No.1102/2010, whereby the h ig controversy has been decided and Writ Appeal preferred by the State H vide Writ Appeal No.185/2013 got dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2013. S.L.P. preferred by the State met the same fate.
The relevant extract of para 12 of judgment rendered in Manmohan Mathur (Supra) is reproduced for ready reference:-
12. Consequently, applying the ratio of judgment of Principal Seat, these petitions are also allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-2 dated 05.10.2009 is set aside. The principal Seat in the operative portion held as under:-
"11. The amendment made in the Rules which was published in the gazette, dated 4.1.2010. It is well settled in law that prima facie every amendment is prospective unless there is clear indication in statute or rule that it would apply with retrospective effect. It is not discernible from the amendment that it is retrospective in nature. Therefore, the amended rule would not apply retrospectively to the proceedings for selection which were already completed. For this additional reason also, the action of the respondents in excluding the names of the petitioners from consideration cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
"12 In the result, the Circular (Annexure P/6) is quashed.
sh The respondents are directed to consider the case of the e petitioners for appointment on the post of contract teacher ad grade-3 in view of the unamended criteria and in the light of Pr Annexure P/5, and if the petitioners are found otherwise eligible for appointment; to issue order of appointment."
a In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned hy counsel for the petitioners, the said writ petitions are allowed in ad similar terms which has been passed in the case of Manmohan M Mathur (supra) and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Manmohan Mathur's case within a period of of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and if the petitioners are found fit, then the appointment rt orders should be issued in their favour immediately thereafter.
ou With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed C and disposed of.
h ig (ANAND PATHAK) H JUDGE AK/-
ANAND KUMAR 2018.06.21 15:04:55 +05'30'