Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh Kushwah vs State Of M.P on 30 July, 2015
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL.
Writ Petition No. 2773/13
Raghavendra Rana
Vs.
State of M.P.and others
Writ Petition No. 2843/13
Rajendra Singh
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors
Writ Petition No.1757/13
Chanchal Kushwaha
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
Writ Petition No.5600/13
KalicharanPrajapati
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors
Writ Petition No.1980/12
Pradeep Singh Sikarwar & Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.2337/12
Himanshu Dusaj & ors.
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
Writ Petition No.2060/12
Narendra Singh Kushwaha
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
Writ Petition No.1890/12
Chandra Mohan
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 775/11
Dileep Sharma
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Shri Rajnish Sharma, & Shri Devendra
Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mrs. Sangeeta Pachori, Govt. Advocate for the
2
respondents/State.
Shri Rajeev Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondent No.5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( 30 / 07 /2015) In view of commonality of the issues, with the consent of parties, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.
2. In few petitions, the petitioners submitted their candidature on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, whereas certain petitions pertains to question of eligibility on the post of Patwari. W.P.No. 2773/13, 2843/13, 1757/13 & W.P. No. 5600/13 are related to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, whereas W.P.No. 1980/12,2337/12, 2060/12 & W.P. No. 775/11 are related to the post of Patwari.
W.P.No.2773/20133. In the W.P., petitioner has contended that he has submitted his candidature for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. He possess the Computer Certificate from D.O.E.A.C.C. Society, Chandigarh. This certificate is filed as Annexure P-3. As per the scheme of appointment for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, the petitioner is entitled to get certain marks if he possess the Computer Diploma Certificate from D.O.E.A.C.C. Society, Chandigarh. It is contended that petitioner's valid certificate was not accepted by the respondents and in the result, petitioner could not receive the marks earmarked for the said qualification. Non-grant of marks has resulted into lower merit of the petitioner which ultimately deprived him from the fruits of selection/appointment.
4. Shri Prakhar Dhengula, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner possess requisite Diploma as per the scheme. He submits that his appeal is erroneously rejected by the Collector on 12.2.2013 (Annexure P-1). He placed reliance on various documents to submit that the certificate issued by D.O.E.A.C.C. Society, Chandigarh is in accordance with the scheme of appointment. It is submitted that the name of D.O.E.A.C.C. was later on changed as NIELIT. The RTI 3 information filed with the petition is also relied upon for this purpose.
5. Per contra, Mrs. Sangeeta Pachori, learned Govt. Advocate relied on the relevant clause of the scheme for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. In addition, she relied on various paragraphs of the return. Heavy reliance is placed on the enquiry report Annexure R-2. On the strength of this report, it is contended that petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Diploma Certificate Annexure P-6 is issued by D.O.E.A.C.C. Society, Chandigarh centre. The RTI information dated 10.4.2013 (page 32) shows that the name of D.O.E.A.C.C. stood changed as NIELIT. It is mentioned in this information that the centre from where petitioner has received training has been recognized by D.O.E.A.C.C. Society, Chandigarh. Reliance is also placed on circular dated 15.12.2004 (page 35) wherein the Directorate of Industry (MP) recognized the certificates issued by D.O.E.A.C.C. Society, Chandigarh.
8. Shri Dhengula, during the course of argument also relied on the document dated 14.3.2012 (page 33) whereby the Director D.O.E.A.C.C. Society, Chandigarh informed the Commissioner that examination in question was conducted by NIELIT, Chandigarh and consequently certificate was issued. The relief clause of the scheme which deals with eligibility condition reads as under:-
¼c½ okafNr ;ksX;rk,a& 1½- lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds Kki dz-lh-@3&11@03@2@,d Hkksiky fnukad
12-6-2009 esa mYysf[kr fuEu laLFkkvksa esa ls fdlh ,d laLFkk ls dEI;wVj ijh{kk mRrh.kA
i). Diploma from all Universities recognized by UGC.
ii). Diploma from all Open Universities recognized by UGC.
iii). Diploma level examination from DOEACC.
¼LFkkuh; :i ls DOEACC is affiliated/Accredited laLFkkvksa ds fMIyksek ekU; ugh½ (Emphasis supplied) 4
9. A plain reading of this eligibility clause shows that Diploma Certificates issued by the affiliated institutions are not acceptable. The impugned order passed by Collector dated 12.2.2013 shows that the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the ground that the certificate in question filed by the petitioner is from local institution namely, NCPUL Computerised Calligraphic Training Center Gwalior. The finding of Collector reads as under:-
**e0iz0 jkT; jkstxkj xkjaVh ifj"kn Hkksiky ds ifji= dzekad 5335] fnukad 02-06-12 esa xzke jkstxkj lgk;d fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr uohu fn'kk funsZ'k ds fcUnq dzekad 4 ¼c½ iii ds vuqlkj LFkkuh; :i ls DOEACC is Affiliated/Accredited laLFkkvksa ds fMIyksek ekU; ugh gS rFkk vihykaV dk DOEACC ds LFkkuh; laLFkk NCPUL Computerised Colligraphic Training Center Gwalior ls fMIyksek gksus ds dkj.k ftyk Lrjh; lfefr }kjk fnukad 12-10-12 dks vekU; fd;k x;k gSA fMIyksek ekU; gksus ds laca/k esa vihykaV }kjk ,sls dksbZ izekf.kr nLrkost@lk{; is'k ugh fd;s x;s gSaA mDr fMIyksek izek.k i= xzke jkstxkj lgk;d dh HkrhZ vUrxZr fu/kkZfjr vgZrkvksa ds v/khu ekU; ;ksX; ugh ik;k x;kA vr% mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vihykaV dh vihy fujk/kkj gksus ls vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA lacaf/kr lwfpr gksA izdj.k lekIr gksdj nk-fj-gksA**
10. This finding of Collector is factually incorrect and perverse in nature. The certificate is not issued by local training centre, Gwalior. The certificate shows that it is issued by D.O.E.A.C.C. Society, Chandigarh. Thus, the Collector has not examined the diploma certificate on the anvil of eligibility clause. The petitioners in these cases have not filed the appeal memo which was decided by the impugned order by learned Collector. Thus, it is not clear that whether the documents which are filed before this Court by the petitioners were available before the Collector. Apart from this, the impugned order of the Collector is passed on 12.2.2013. On the same date, enquiry report Annexure R-2 is prepared. It is not clear whether this report was provided to the petitioners. In the light of aforesaid and on account of the fact that it is not clear whether relevant documents were brought to the notice of the Collector, I deem it proper to remit the matter back to the Collector to decide it afresh. Since order dated 12.2.2013 (Annexure P-1) is based on incorrect fact, it needs to be interfered with.
511. Resultantly, the order dated 12.2.2013 is set aside for the singular reason that the said authority treated the certificate to have been issued from local institution. The matter is remitted back to the Collector to decide the same afresh. The parties are at liberty to file relevant documents before the Collector. It will be lawful for the Collector to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh expeditiously, preferably within 45 days from the date of production of copy of this order. W.P. No. 2773/13, 2843/13, 1757/13 & W.P. No. 5600/13 are allowed to the extent indicated above.
12. In cases of Patwari also, the question pertains to the same qualification of diploma. In these cases also, the certificates are issued from D.O.E.A.C.C. Society, Chandigarh. As analyzed above, the competent authority/Collector is required to apply mind whether this certificate is in consonance with the eligibility condition. In these cases, petitioners contended that they were treated to be ineligible. Since in cases of Patwari, no appeal is provided, these petitions are directly filed before this Court. For the reasons stated in cases of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, I deem it proper to relegate this matter for decision to concerned Collector. Accordingly, petitioners are directed to file detailed representation along with relevant documents to show that their diploma certificate is in consonance with eligibility condition. If the said representation is preferred along with copy of this order, it will be the duty of the learned Collector to decide it expeditiously by reasoned order preferably within 45 days.
13. These batch of petitions are also disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the eligibility or entitlement of the petitioners.
14. Registry is directed to keep a true copy of this order in the record of connected matters.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge vv