Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rani Patnaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 10592 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
RANI PATNAHA W/O SHRI VINOD PATNAHA
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE SOHAWAL,
JANPAD PANCHAYAT SOHAWAL, DISTT. SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAKESH SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.ITS
SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER, M.P. STATE EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE COUNCIL NARMADA BHAWAN 2ND
FLOOR C WING 59 ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER STATE
EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE COUNCIL,
NARMADA BHAWAN 2ND FLOOR C WING 59
ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COLLECTOR S AT N A DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT
DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
SOHAWAL DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. S A R PA N C H GRAM PANCHAYAT SOHAWAL
JANPAD PANCHAYAT, SOHAWAL DISTT. SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 07-05-2024
18:35:45
2
8. VIKAS NAMDEO S/O NOT KNOWN R/O VILLAGE
SOHAWAL JANPAD PANCHYAT, SOHAWAL, DISTT.
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Mrs. Sanjana Jain, Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Satna is present in person before this Court.
Petitioner's grievance is that he is aggrieved of order dated 22/04/2019 passed by M.P. Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishal Panchayat and Rural Development Department whereby petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Village Sohawal, Janpad Panchayat, Sohawal, Distt. Satna for which advertisement was issued on 23/6/2012 was rejected.
2. Petitioner had filed W.P. No.15541/2012 which was decided by the High Court on 15/01/2018 in the following terms :
"In view of aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Employment Guarantee Council to consider and decide the representation/application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."
Thereafter in terms of the said order of the High Court, impugned order Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 07-05-2024 18:35:45 3 (Annexure-P/1) has been passed 22/04/2019 rejecting petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak.
3. Petitioner's contention is that in the advertisement in clause-4(B) eligibility conditions have been provided and it is provided in sub-para(2) of Clause-B that employable profession training from an Industrial Training Institute in Accountancy, Computer Application, Data Entry Operator, Architect, Assistant having duration of six months will be eligibility condition besides other conditions mentioned therein. Petitioner places reliance on the Provisional National Trade Certificate issued in his favour by the State Board of Examination in January, 2012 which is enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure- P/5 to suggest that since petitioner possesses vocational training certificate in Compute Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA), therefore, he was entitled to be considered for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sahayak. It is submitted that respondents have arbitrarily denied him appointment and they have failed to consider the qualifications of the petitioner though it is mentioned in the GAD circular dated 12/06/2009 and adopted by the M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council vide its circular dated 02/06/2012, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak.
4. Mrs. Sanjana Jain, CEO, Jila Panchayat, submits that COPA was not part of prescribed qualifications either in the GAD circular dated 12/06/2009 or the circular issued by the M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council on 02/06/2012 in terms of which advertisement was issued on 23/06/2012. She points out that this condition was executed after amendment in the circular dated 02/06/2012 vide order dated 12/11/2014 and will not have retrospective application.
5. Petitioner's contention is that computer application includes COPA.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 07-05-2024 18:35:45 4This argument needs to be rejected because in the original rules of 2009 prescription is of six months' certificate from ITI in Computer Application whereas in 2014 respondents have included one year's certificate course in COPA. Therefore, six month's certification in Computer Application cannot be equated with one year's certificate of COPA especially when there is no material to show the equivilance between the two and especially in view of the fact that said qualification of COPA is not mentioned either in the advertisement or in the circulars applied for judging the qualifications.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that specific qualification of COPA certificate from ITI was not available at the time of issuance of the advertisement. This qualification is not mentioned in either the GAD circular dated 12/06/2009 or in the circular issued by the M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council on 02/06/2012, therefore, amendment carried out on 12/11/2014 will not have any retrospective application, therefore, the qualifications possess by the petitioner i.e. one year's certificate in Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA) being added after the recruitment process had began, subsequent amendment will not be applicable retrospectively, therefore, there is no illegality in the decision of the respondents authorities in not accepting the qualifications of COPA of petitioner for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak.
7. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 07-05-2024 18:35:45 5 Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 07-05-2024 18:35:45