Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Brijbhushan Prasad Tiwari Judgement ... on 6 March, 2014
W.A.No.1428/2013
State of MP & Ors. Vs. Braj Bhusan Prasad Tiwari & Anr.
06/03/2014
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
petitioners/State.
Shri Subodh Kathal, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties are heard on the question of admission.
This is an appeal filed by the department under Section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, whereby tenability of an order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.915/2012 has been called in question.
2. Respondent/employee was working as a Daily Wages Employee and in pursuance to a policy formulated by the State Government, he along with many others were put to a rigorous selection process for being appointed on regular basis as a Forest Guard. Respondent/employee underwent training and after physical test and verification of his physical standards, he was granted appointment on the post in question. When he went to join on the post, physical measurement was again undertaken, it was found that the height was not properly recorded and on the basis of the same, he was not allowed to join. This led to the respondent/employee to approach this Court and this Court Court allowed the claim of the respondent/employee and directed the petitioners/department to consider the claim of the respondent/employee for appointment. The department rejected it on the ground of height criteria. Based on the same, the employee was to be appointed but instead of issuing an order of appointment, on the ground that in view of Rule 6 (5) of the MP W.A.No.1428/2013 State of MP & Ors. Vs. Braj Bhusan Prasad Tiwari & Anr.
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, as the petitioner has contacted a marriage before he had attained the age of 21 years, his claim was again rejected.
3. Matter again came up before this Court in Review Petition No.176/2011 and, thereafter, when the claim was again rejected, it came to this Court again in the writ petition in question i.e. W.P.No.915/2012, wherein the impugned order has been passed.
4. Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners/State tried to emphasize that by virtue of the provisions of Rule 6(5), the respondent/employee is not entitled for appointment, Shri Subodh Kathal, learned counsel refuted the aforesaid.
5. A perusal of the order passed in W.P.No.915/2012 on 19.3.2013, it is seen that available on records of the writ petition are the marriage certificate showing date of marriage of the respondent/employee and mark-sheet and other documents showing his date of birth. It was found that while filling up of the application form for appointment to the post in question, respondent/employee indicated his date of marriage incorrectly, infact he indicated that he was married in the year 1978. Taking note of this fact, while considering his case under Section 6 (5), it is held by the Department that he contacted the marriage before the age of 21 years, his date of birth being 25.7.1966. However, it was found that the Registrar of the Marriages has issued a marriage certificate, which is available on record of the writ court. The marriage certificate was issued, in which date of marriage was indicated as 20th of February, 1988. Based on the same, the learned Writ Court has held that merely because the respondent/employee incorrectly mentioned his date of marriage as 1978, while filling W.A.No.1428/2013 State of MP & Ors. Vs. Braj Bhusan Prasad Tiwari & Anr.
up of the application form for participating in the process of the examination for the post in question, but the records available do show that the actual date of marriage of the respondent/ employee is 20th of February, 1988. If that be so, he was more than 22 years of age at the time of his marriage.
6. The learned Writ court has gone through the records available in the writ petition and has passed the order. That being so, the order passed by the learned Writ Court does not call for any interference by this Court, as the same is passed after scrutinizing the records available in the writ petition.
7. That apart, it is found that the Division Bench in the case of Gendlal Patel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in W.A.No.112/2008 decided on 27.2.2008 has also held that the provisions of Rule 6 (5) was incorporated by amending the rule in the year 2000 and, therefore, to marriages performed prior to the year 2000, this rule cannot be made applicable. That apart, vide amendment incorporated into the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, vide notification dated 24th of May, 2013, the rule i.e. Rule 6 (5) itself has been omitted.
8. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere into the matter, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (J.K.Jain)
Judge Judge
nd