Madhya Pradesh High Court
Diwakar Singh Gond vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A.No.206/2017 & W.A.No.207/2017
Jabalpur, Dated : 04.04.2018
Shri S.D. Mishra, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Amit Seth, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate for respondent No.6. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 30.08.2016 whereby the writ petition was allowed relying upon an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 15.07.2016 in W.P.No.12478/2015 (Sudhakar Prasad Kushwaha vs. State of M.P. & others). It was held that the Computer Efficiency Test introduced by the Collector is not permissible in law. However, in appeal W.A.No.592/2016 (The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Prabhakar Sharma & Another), the appointment of 703 candidates who appeared in the Computer Efficiency Test was not interfered with. It was also ordered that the order would be applicable only to the set of petitioners, who approached this Court and not to such persons, who have not approached the Court.
The relevant extract from the order reads as under;-
"14. Before parting, we may indicate that we are informed by Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advocate that in the district in question i.e. Rewa, the entire selection process was done, merit list was prepared strictly in accordance with the scheme contained in annexure P-2 dated 2.6.2012 and based on the merit list prepared the computer efficiency test was conducted and 703 candidates who passed the computer efficiency test have 2 been appointed. It is stated that all these 703 persons are meritorious, their name appear in the original merit list and their selection being strictly in accordance with policy dated 2.6.2012, therefore, the meritorious candidates from selection list, who have passed the computer efficiency test and have been appointed, need not to be disturbed. We find much force in the aforesaid submissions of Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advocate. Such of the candidates who found place in the merit list prepared as per scheme dated 2.6.2012 and if have been appointed after passing computer efficiency test, their appointments need not be disturbed as they have gone through selection process as contemplated under the scheme dated 2.6.2012 and their names find place in the final merit list prepared as per the scheme. That apart, this order shall be applicable only to the set of the petitioners who have approached this Court (sic.) and it shall not to be applicable to such persons, who have not approached this Court."
The SLP against the aforesaid order bearing No.3239-3242/2017 (Upendra Kumar Chaturvedi Etc. vs. Collector, Rewa & Ors.) has been dismissed on 23.03.2018.
As per the appellants, they are one of 703 candidates, who were appointed after they appeared in the Computer Efficiency Test, therefore their appointment is protected by the said order passed by the Division Bench in Prabhakar Sharma's case.
We find that the writ-petitioners have not made any grievance in respect of candidates of Computer Efficiency Test for more than 2 years after the appointments were made in the year 2014. Since the writ-petitioners have not taken any step to dispute the condition of the 3 Computer Efficiency Test, therefore, in terms of the order of the Division Bench in Prabhakar Sharma's case (supra), the directions issued in the writ petition cannot be sustained.
Consequently, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Bench is not sustainable in view of the latter judgment of the Division Bench in Prabhakar Sharma's case (supra).
Consequently, the writ appeals are allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Bench is set aside.
(Hemant Gupta) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
shukla
Digitally signed by SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Date: 2018.04.05 12:59:42 +05'30'