Madhya Pradesh High Court
Miss Nilam Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 13th OF JULY , 2022
WRIT PETITION NO.15157 OF 2022
Between:-
MISS NILAM SONI D/O. SHRI
GOPAL SONI AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED R/O. LAKKAD
KHANA PUL, NEAR ASHISH
MEDICAL, SAAT BHAI KI GOTH,
LASHKAR, GWALIOR, MADHYA
PRADESH.
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HARSHVARDHAN TOPRE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPLE
SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF
TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL
EDUCATION, SKILL
DEVELOPMENT AND
EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
MADHYA PRADESH, ADDRESS:
DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL
EDUCATION, MADHYA PRADESH
4TH FLOOR, SATPURA BHAWAN,
BHOPAL - 462004.
2. PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION
2
BOARD, MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH CHAIRMAN, ADDRESS:
"CHAYAN BHAWAN", MAIN ROAD
NO.1, CHINAR PARK (EAST),
BHOPAL - 462011.
........RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
AND SHRI PRAVEEN NEWASKAR - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances and grounds urged, the present petitioner most humbly prays that the present petition may kindly be allowed by directing the respondents to consider the Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT) result of the petitioner held on 27.10.2018 for the purpose of recruitment under "Group-02 (Sub-Group-04) Sahayak Samparikshak, Kanishtha Sahayak, Data Entry Operator and other post Recruitment Test- 2020"
by considering the Cut-off marks with Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT) qualification and any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to secure the ends of justice."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is well qualified and has undertaken and qualified B.Com course in regular category from recognized college. She has also qualified Post Graduate Diploma in 3 Computer Application. The petitioner has also successfully passed and qualified Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT) from M.P. Agency for Promotion of Information Technology on 27/10/2018. As per circular dated 26/2/2015 issued by the Government of M.P., General Administration Department, the period of validity of Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT) for the purpose of appointment on various posts, whether contractual or regular, was two years from the date of passing the said examination.
3. In the year 2020 the respondent no.2 issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Sahayak Samparikshak, Kanishtha Sahayak, Data Entry Operator and other posts under Group-2 (Sub Group-4), for which examinations were conducted by issuing Group-2 (Sub Group-4) Sahayak Samparikshak, Kanishtha Sahayak, Data Entry Operator and other posts Recruitment Test, 2020. The starting date for filling online application form was 1/12/2020 and the last date was 15/12/2020. The examinations were to be held from 29/1/2021 to 4/2/2021. However, the examinations were held on 19/12/2021. In the meanwhile, i.e. on 17/9/2021 the Government of MP, GAD issued a circular thereby extending the period of validity of Computer Proficiency Certification Test from two years to seven years from the date of passing of the said examination. It is submitted that in spite of the said circular, the respondent no.2 did not allow the petitioner to revise her application form. The result of the said examination was declared and the petitioner secured 137.23 as Nominalized Final Marks and has been kept under waiting list. However, as per the cut-off list, the cut-off marks for the candidates with CPCT passing certificate is much lower than the marks 4 obtained by the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner is liable to be considered for the post under the category of CPCT passing certificate.
4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is well established principle of law that the crucial date for acquiring minimum qualification is the last date for submitting application forms. According to the petitioner, an advertisement was issued in the year 2020 and the last date for submitting the application form was 15/12/2020. Although the date for examination was from 29/1/2021 to 4/2/2021, but according to the petitioner, the examination was conducted on 19/12/2021. However, on 17/9/2021 a circular was issued and the validity of CPCT certificate was extended from two years to seven years, i.e. much after the expiry of last date for submission of examination form. It is submitted that it is well established principle of law that the rules of game cannot be changed in midway and since the circular was issued after the last date for submission of application form, therefore, it cannot be given retrospective effect.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. According to the petitioner, the last date for submission of application form was 15/12/2020 and at that time, the period of validity of CPCT certificate was two years, however, by circular dated 17/9/2021, i.e. after the commencement of the recruitment/selection process, the validity of CPCT certificate was enhanced from two years to seven years. It is well established principle of law that the rules of game after the commencement of the selection process cannot be changed.
57. The Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Sharma and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 724 has held as under:-
"11. .........Once the advertisement had been issued on the basis of the circular obtaining at that particular time, the effect would be that the selection process should continue on the basis of the criteria which were laid down and it cannot be on the basis of the criteria which has been made subsequently."
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540 has held as under:-
"15. No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the "rules of the game" insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 1293] , etc. in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the "rules of the game" stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard.
8.1 Thus, it is clear that the State and its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to tinker with the rules of game insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria in order to avoid manipulation of recruitment process and its results. However, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench 6 only in order to verify as to whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the "rules of the game" stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection.
9. Further, it is clear from the circular dated 17/9/2021 that the GAD, State of M.P. had made it applicable from prospective effect. Circular dated 17/9/2021 reads as under:-
Ek/; izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ea=ky;% dzekad lh 3&15@2014@1@3 Hkksiky]fnukad17-09-2021 izfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx] v/;{k] jktLo e.My] e/;izns'k] Xokfy;j] leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr laHkkxk;qDr] leLr dysDVj] leLr eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r] e/;izns'kA fo"k;%& 'kklu ds fofHkUu foHkkxksa ,oa dk;kZy;ksa esa fofHkUu inksa ij lafonk@fu;fer fu;qfDr;ksa ds fy, vk;ksftr gksus okyh ijh{kkvksa esa lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh@dEI;wVj {ks= esa n{krk ds izek.khdj.k gsrq dEI;wVj n{krk izek.khdj.k ijh{kk ¼computer proficiency certification test-CPCT½ ds izek.k i= ¼score card½ dh oS|rk vof/k esa o`f) ds laca/k esaA lanHkZ %-&1&lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx dk ifji= daz0 -lh 3&15@2014@1@3- fnukad 26 Qjojh 2015-
2& lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx dk ifji= fnukad 24-7-2019 3& foKku ,oa izkS|kSfxdh foHkkx dk ifji= dzekad ,Q 14&7@2016@41&2] fnukad 23&3&2021 &&&& lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds mijksDr lanfHkZr ifji= fnukad 26 Qjojh 2015 }kjk jkT; 'kklu ds fofHkUu foHkkxksa ,oa dk;kZy;ksa esa fofHkUu inksa ij lafonk@fu;fer fu;qfDr;ksa ds fy, vk;ksftr gksus okyh ijh{kkvksa esa lwpuk izkS|kSfxdh@dEI;wVj {ks= esa n{krk ds izek.khdj.k gsrq dEI;wVj n{krk izek.khdj.k ijh{kk ¼computer proficiency certification test-CPCT½ ds laca/k esa funsZ'k tkjh fd;s x;s gSaA 2& mDr funsZ'k dh dafMdk 3 ¼1½ esa dEI;wVj n{krk izek.khdj.k ijh{kk ¼computer proficiency certification test-CPCT½ ds izek.k i= ¼score card½ dh oS|rk vof/k 7 pkj ¼04½ o"kZ fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ FkhA 3& jkT; 'kklu ,rn~ n~okjk dEI;wVj n{krk izek.khdj.k ijh{kk ¼computer proficiency certification test-CPCT½ ds izek.k i= ¼score card½ ¼iwoZ esa tkjh izek.k i=ksa lfgr ½ dh oS|rk vof/k nks ¼02½ o"kZ ds LFkku ij lkr ¼07½ o"kZ fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj& ¼fn'kk iz.k; ukxoa'kh½ mi lfpo e/;izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx
10. The use of words **vk;ksftr gksus okyh ijh{kkvksa esa**, clearly indicates that "the examinations which are to be conducted in future". If this circular is given retrospective effect, then it would be contrary to the settled law that the rules of game cannot be changed after the commencement of the selection process. It is well established principle of law that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should be avoided. Accordingly, since circular dated 17/9/2021 is prospective in nature and it cannot be given retrospective effect, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
11. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
Arun* JUDGE
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2022.07.14 16:30:58 +05'30'