Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naipal Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2017
(1)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8634/2012
Naipal Singh Yadav
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
PRESENT:
For Petitioner : Ms. Malati Dadariya, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, Govt. Advocate
Order posted for: 02.02.2017
(Sujoy Paul)
Judge
s@if
(2)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8634/2012
Naipal Singh Yadav
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Ms. Malati Dadariya, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, Govt. Advocate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(02.02.2017.) Per : Sujoy Paul J.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 19.04.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby the respondents rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the certificate obtained by the petitioner (Annexure P-8) is not in consonance with the eligibility conditions prescribed for the post of Patwari.
2. Ms. Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the said order by contending that as per the eligibility conditions (Annexure P-7) the candidate must have Higher Secondary or High School (10 + 2 with " O" level certification from "DOEACC/IETE or from a university recognized by UGC. In addition the institutions which are registered recognized and affiliated are also eligible to issue one year diploma course.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken pains to submit that (Annexure P-8) is a certificate issued by a (3) Government Institution namely Principal Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I. Gwalior). Petitioner completed the course in the trade of "Data Preparation and Computer Software". By taking this Court to (Annexure P-14) dated 2.04.2013 (with rejoinder), it is urged that the said certificate/trade was subsequently re named as Affiliated Trade Computer Operate and Programming Assistant (C.O.P.A.). This course is treated to be equivalent to "O" level certificate issued by " DOEACC". She submits that the trade in which petitioner obtained certificate (Annexure P-8) was recognized and held to be eligible to fill up the post of I.T.Operator in various Departments of the State Government which is evident from the advertisement (Annexure P-12).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner earlier filed a petition before Gwalior Bench of this Court. The Gwalior Bench on 08.04.2011 passed a common order and directed all the respondents to examine the documents of the petitioners individually. If petitioners fulfill the other requirements, they should be directed to appear in the practical test. It is contended that no practical test was conducted and petitioner's candidature is erroneously rejected on the ground that the certificate is not issued from any recognized institute. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner's candidature was rejected after permitting him to participate in the selection. Hence the impugned order is bad in law.
5. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the relief. He submits that the minimum essential qualification is Diploma in Computer (4) Application (DCA). The trade in which petitioner has obtained certificate (Annexure P-8) can not be treated as equivalent with DCA. Merely because petitioner obtained certificate from Government I.T.I. Gwalior, he will not become eligible unless it is established that the said certificate is equivalent to DCA. He submits that advertisement issued for other Department are based on different advertisement and is based on different eligibility conditions. Petitioner can not draw parallel from other posts and from a different advertisement. It is submitted that (Annexure P-14) can not be read in the manner suggested by the petitioner.
6. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
7. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
8. The spinal issue in this case is whether the certificate issued by I.T.I. Gwalior (Annexure P-1) can be treated to be equivalent to DCA. In addition whether the action of respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by (Annexure P-1) is legal and proper. It is also required to be seen whether the order of Gwalior Bench passed in W.P.No.2871/2010 gives any legal right to the petitioner for consideration of his candidature.
9. The Gwalior Bench in W.P. No. 2871/2010, issued directions pursuant to which the department was required to take a practical test of each of the candidates if he fulfills other requirements so as to satisfy that the petitioner is having adequate knowledge and is similar with computer (5) operations. I am unable to read this order of Gwalior Bench in the manner suggested by the petitioner. This order, in my considered opinion no way permits the authority to consider the claim of the candidate dehors the necessary eligibility conditions. The relevant clause about necessary eligibility conditions reads as under:
" 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk % gk;j lsdaMªh ;k gkbZLdwy ¼10$2½ mRrh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gS lkFk gh ''O' Level certification from DOEACC/IETE ;k UGC ls ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; }kjk lapkfyr@iathd`r@ekU;rk izkIr@ lEc) laLFkk ls 1 o"khZ; dEI;wVj fMIyksek ;k dEI;wVj essa mPp f'k{kk izkIr gksuh pkfg;sA "
[Emphasized Supplied]
10. The petitioner's candidature can be accepted/considered only when he fulfills the aforesaid requirement of possessing necessary qualification. The petitioner is claiming that the certificate issued by the ITI Gwalior should be treated as equivalent to DCA. There is no material on record to establish that the subject in the trade of "Data Preparation and Computer Software" is equivalent to DCA. In absence thereto, it cannot be said that the petitioner was deprived from his right of consideration. Similarly, there is no clinching evidence on record to show that the aforesaid trade of ITI is equivalent to COPA.
11. In the Constitution Bench judgment reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 [The University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and another], it was held that Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts, particularly, in a case where there is no allegation of malafide against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. The (6) decision should be left with the experts who are more familiar with the problems and requirements of a particular post. In [Chancellar and another vs Vijendra kar] 1994 (1) SCC 169, it was held that whether or not a candidate fulfills the requisite qualification is to be decided by the Selection Committee. Same view is taken by the Apex Court in [ G.N. Nayak vs. Goa University] 2002 (2) SCC 712. In [Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University] 1999 (1) SCC 453, the Apex Court reiterated the same principles by holding that interference by Court in such technical matters is not warranted. In 2011 (2) SCC 575 [Transport and Dock Workers Union and others vs. Mumbai Port Trust and another], it was held that in view of inherent complexities involved in modern society, some free play must be given to executive authorities and the Courts must be loath in interfering with the same. I also find force in the arguments of Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, learned G.A., that petitioner cannot rely upon a different advertisement issued for a different posts in different departments. The nature of qualification may differ from post to post and from department to department. Thus, the advertisement relied upon by the petitioner is of no assistance to him.
12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I am unable to hold that the petitioner is possessing the essential qualification of DCA or any other equivalent qualification. Thus, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. In the result, petition is dismissed. No Cost.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge s@if