Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sangita Mayda vs Veterinary Science And Animal ... on 12 January, 2017
WP-4615-2016 (SANGITA MAYDA Vs VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT) 12-01-2017 Shri Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for petitioners. Shri C.S.Ujjainia, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri V.P. Khare, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to appear in the examination process initiated through the advertisement dated 18/5/2016 for the recruitment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. At the outset, it has been pointed out that the examinations are already over and the petitioner No.1,2,4 and 5 have not appeared in the said examination, therefore, the writ petition as against them has become infructuous.
It has been pointed out that in the Writ Appeal, interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner No.3, therefore, he has been provisionally allowed to appear in the examination.
In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is a qualified veterinary surgeon and was having the provisional registration with M.P. State Veterinary Council prior to 18/5/2016. By the advertisement dated 18/5/2016, applications were invited for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and on account of the Clause 2(G)(iii) of the advertisement, the petitioner was not allowed to submit the candidature. This clause imposes a condition of having the permanent registration with the Veterinary Council prior to the issuance of the notification.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though Clause 2(G)(ii) and (iii) of the advertisement require the permanent registration prior to the date of advertisement, but in terms of clause 3(i), the candidate was required to have minimum eligibility on the last date of submission of application and before the last date of submission of application, the petitioner had obtained the permanent registration, therefore, he should be allowed to participate.
The prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for respondents.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the issue which the petitioner is raising has already been decided by the order dated 1/12/2016 passed in WP No.10466/2016 in the matter of Akshay Kumar & Others Vs. MPPSC and others and other connected batch of writ petitions by holding as under:-
7] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that the petitioners have two fold grievances. First grievance is about the requirement of having registration certificate prior to the date of issuance of advertisement and the second grievance is about not treating the temporary registration at par with the permanent registration, though no distinction in this regard has been drawn in the advertisement and rules.
8] So far as the issue of cut-off date for possessing the requisite eligibility qualification for recruitment to public employment is concerned, law is well settled that the cut-off date with reference to which the eligibility requirement is to be satisfied is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if in the relevant service rules no such cut-off date is appointed, then the date so appointed in the advertisement calling application and if there is no such date appointed in the advertisement, then the last date of submission of application is the cut- off date.
9] The Supreme Court in the matter of Shankar K. Mandal & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others, (2003) 9 SCC 519 following earlier judgment has clearly culled out the following principles in this regard :-
..................The principles culled out from the decisions of this Court (see Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar, Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Jasbir Rani Vs. State of Punjab) are as follows:
1. The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules.
2. If there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications.
3. If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority.
10] This aspect of the matter has again been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Alka Ojha Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Another, (2011) 9 SCC 438 and while taking note of the earlier judgment on the point it has been held that :-
â15. The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab this Court referred to the earlier judgments in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M.Tripura Sundari Devi, M.V. Nair v. Union of India, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court: (Bhupinderpal Singh case, SCC p. 268, para 13) â13.....(i) that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules than such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority.â 11] The Supreme Court in the matter of Bhupinderpal Singh& Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2000) 5 SCC 262 has also summarized the above position in law by holding as :-
âPlacing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad Vs. Alpana the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with.
However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.â 12] Thus, it is no longer res integra that if the cut-off date for eligibility requirement for public employment is to be determined, then at the first instance the relevant rule needs to be examined and if no cut-off date is prescribed therein, then the advertisement and if no cut-off date is prescribed in the advertisement, then the last date of submission of the application is relevant. 13] In the present case the recruitment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966, (for short of 'Rules') which have been framed in exercise of powers contained in Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Vide Gazette notification dated 30/12/2011 Schedule-III of the Rules prescribing the educational qualification for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon was amended and the relevant extract of the amended Schedule-III as on 30/12/11 is as under :-
Schedule-III Educational Name of Name of Minimum Maximum Qualification S.N. the Prescribed service Age Age [1] department [6] [3] [4] [5] [2] A Graduate in Veterinary Science From Recognised Department University Veterinary of Institution of India Assistant 21 Years 35 Years Veterinary and registered Surgeon Services under Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (No.52 of 1984) 14] The above schedule prescribing minimum additional qualification for Veterinary Assistant Surgeon was again amended vide Gazette notification dated 29/12/15 to the following effect :-
Name of Educational
Name of Minimu Maximu
S.N. the Qualification
service m Age m Age
[1] department Prescribed
[3] [4] [5]
[2] [6]
(1) Graduation in
Veterinary Science
from any recognized
University/Institution
of India established
under rule of law.
â40 (2) Registered under
years Madhya Pradesh State
Veterinary council,
established under rule
of law, before the date
of advertisement of
the postâ.
15] In the present case the aforesaid amendments are attracted since the impugned advertisement is of subsequent date.
16] As per the amended recruitment rules registration under the Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Council before the date of advertisement of the post is necessary. The schedule-III of the recruitment Rules 1966 prescribing the aforesaid condition is not under challenge in these writ petitions. Hence, the prescription of minimum eligibility condition in the advertisement in accordance with the recruitment rules cannot be held to be bad in law.
17] It is worth noting that this Court in the matter of Shailesh Kumar Patel & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2013(3) MPLJ 391 in a case where in the recruitment process initiated in 2012 for the same post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon while considering the challenge to the cut-off date for possessing necessary qualification this Court has already held that in such cases hardship in individual cases or consideration of sympathetic ground is not permissible for extending the date as it would result in gross injustice to other and if a candidate does not possess the necessary qualifications on the cut-off date, he is disqualified and cannot be permitted to participate in the selection process or be considered therein. 18] Hence, I am of the opinion that cut-off date of possessing the registration under M.P. State Veterinary Council before the date of advertisement of post as prescribed in the advertisement cannot be held to be bad in law, therefore, the challenge to that extent is rejected.
19] Another issue has been raised by the petitioners that the recruitment rules provide for having the registration certificate without making any distinction between provisional and permanent registration, therefore, the petitioners should be permitted to participate in the selection process on the basis of provisional registration certificate. 20] This issue has already been examined in detail in earlier judgment in the matter of Shailesh Kumar Patel & others (supra),wherein after considering in detail the scheme of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 the regulation framed therein it has been held :-
â11.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of Schedule III of the Recruitment Rules of 1966, it is clear that the requisite and necessary educational qualification prescribed for appointment on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon is a Bachelors Degree in Veterinary Science from a recognized University or institution in India or abroad. It is also undisputed that the degree course being perused by the petitioners in the instant case is duly recognized.
12. Section 22(1) of the Act of 1984, enables thecouncil to prescribe the minimum standard of veterinary education and apparently does not deal with recognition of any educational qualification. In exercise of powers under section 22(1) read with Section 21 of the Act of 1984, the Veterinary Council of India with the approval of the Central Government has framed the Regulation of 1993. Part-II of the Regulations of 1993, deals with the course of study, Clause (1) of which provides that a degree course of B.V.Sc & A.H shall comprise of a course of study consisting of the curriculam and syllabus provided in these regulations spread over five complete academic years including a compulsory internship of six months duration undertaken after successful completion of all credit hours provided in the syllabus. Part-IV, which contains Regulation 7(2) of the Regulations of 1993, deals with internship. A conjoint reading of clauses
(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (vii)(b) & (viii) of the aforesaid Regulation, makes it clear that every candidate, after passing the final B.V.Sc & A.H examination, has to undergo compulsory rotating internship for a minimum period of six months so as to be eligible for award of a B.V.Sc & A.H degree and full registration and that for the purpose of undertaking the internship the University is required to issue a provisional course completion certificate on passing of the final examination, on the strength of which a candidate is granted provisional registration by the State Veterinary Council for a limited period of six months to enable him to undertake training as a Veterinary Surgeon during internship. Clause (vii)(b) & (viii) of the Regulations of 1993, further provides that the Dean/Principal/Associate Dean, as the case may be, based on the record of the work of the student, shall thereafter issue a certificate of satisfactory completion of training âfollowing whichâ the University shall award the B.V.Sc & A.H degree or the provisional certificate and that the candidate shall get himself registered with the State Veterinary Council only after the award of B.V.Sc & A.H degree or a provisional certificate in that regard by the University.
13.From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law and the Regulations, it is clear that the B.V.Sc. & A.H degree can be awarded to a candidate only after he successfully completes his compulsory internship and the issuance of a successful completion certificate in that regard. When the documents, Annexure P-2 & P-3, are read alongwith the aforesaid Regulations of 1993, it is clear that the aforesaid documents only certify that the candidate has passed the final examination and is now eligible for undertaking internship. This fact is clearly mentioned in the last paragraph of the certificate issued to the petitioners, Annexure P-2. It is also clear that this certificate has been sent to the Registrar of State Veterinary Council, Bhopal to enable him to issue a provisional registration certificate as envisaged in Regulation 7(2)(iv) of the Regulations of 1993, so that the candidate can undertake internship training as a Veterinary Surgeon and this has been clarified by the Council in notes no.1 & 2 appended to the certificates which read as under:-
uksV%& 1- vuqeksfnr laLFkku esa dsoy izf'k{k.k ds fy, gh /kkjd vH;kl ds fy, vf/kd``r gksxkA 2- Qkbuy iathdj.k ds le; ewy izek.k i= okil tek djokuk visf{kr gSA**
14. It is also clear from a perusal of the last column of this certificate, Annexure P-3, that they were valid only upto 23.6.2013 for undertaking internship and that final registration, after completion of internship, would be granted only after this provisional certificate is returned and deposited with the Council.â 21] The aforesaid judgment reveals that the provisional registration certificate is issued only for the limited purpose, hence each case is required to be scrutinized by the PSC to ascertain if the petitioners possess the requisite qualification in the light of the law laid down in the matter of Shailesh Kumar Patel (supra) on the cut-off date.
22] Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon the Single Bench order of Indore Bench dated 21/11/16 passed in W.P.No.4342/16 in the matter of Nilam Morey & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Another submitting that the case is fully covered by the said order, but in that case neither cut- off date prescribed in the recruitment rules and the amendment made therein subsequently in the year 2015, nor of earlier judgment of this Court on the point in the case of Shailesh Kumar Patel (supra) was pointed out, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the order of the Indore Bench.
23] In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent PSC to scrutinize the case of each of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shailesh Kumar Patel (supra) and the cut-off date provided in the recruitment rules and ascertain if they were having the requisite qualification on the cut-off date and then proceed further in accordance with law. 24] Accordingly, the writ petitions are partly allowed.
25] Signed order be kept in the file of W.P.No.10466/16 and copy whereof be kept in the file of connected W.P.Nos. 10787/16, 10942/16, 11221/16, 11284/16, 11525/16 & 11842/16â.
In the present case, the petitioner had obtained the provisional registration with the M.P. State Veterinary Council on 2/12/2015 and prior to the date of issuance of advertisement ie. 18/5/2016, no permanent registration was granted to the petitioner and the same has subsequently been granted to the petitioner on 22/6/2016, therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the selection process as he does not fulfill the minimum eligibility condition as prescribed in Clause 6-2(G) (ii) and
(iii) of the advertisement for recruitment Annexure P/2. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE