Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2022
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 28th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 1527 of 2015
Between:-
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA S/O SHRI NARAYAN
PRASAD MISHRA , AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED VIJAYPUR GRAM
PANCHAYAT PIPRAHA POST VITHAULI JANPAD
PANCHAYAT AND TEH. SIHAWAL DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRABHAKAR SINGH, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THE STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PROGRAME OFFICER M.G.R.G.S. JANPAD
PANCHYAT PPARAHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. KU. SARLA PATEL D/O SHIVMANGAL , AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, VILL. PIPARHA TAH AND DI.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for urgent hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated 13/01/2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa rejecting the revision filed by the present petitioner against the orders of the Additional Collector, Sidhi in Case No. 34/A-
Signature Not 89-A(15)/2012-13 Arun Kumar Mishra Vs Sarla Patel D/o Shiv Mangal Patel SAN Verified and others.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.04.04 18:56:19 IST 2Petitioner's contention is that an advertisement was issued for appointment of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak. Petitioner and respondent no. 6 both were candidates to said selection. Petitioner's contention is that petitioner had secured 119.11 marks against 70.00 marks secured by respondent no. 6. He being first in the provisional merit list, his name was recommended for appointment.
Respondent no. 6 had filled her form on 2/07/2012, that was the last date for submission of application forms. Drawing attention towards the application form as is contained in Annexure P-10, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application form itself, there is a mention of date of filling up the form as 2/07/2012. Respondent no. 6 has shown her qualification that she passed B.C.A. from Makhanlal Chaturvedi Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal in the year 2012 and had secured 611 marks out of 850.
However, respondent no. 6 had not furnished a copy of final mark-sheet of her B.C.A. examination, as a result, she was not granted marks for the said qualification.
Respondent no. 6 had filed an objection as contained in Annexure P-7 on 4/10/2012 mentioning therein that she was a candidate for selection to the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for Gram Panchayat Pipraha. Originally, the mark-sheet was not available, therefore, she had enclosed a copy from internet and, therefore, is entitled to grant of 50 marks. She made a request that she has enclosed a copy obtained by her from internet and subsequently original mark-sheet, therefore, 50 marks be given to her.
It is submitted that originally mark-sheet for 6th semester was issued on 24/09/2012, therefore, there was no occasion for respondent no. 6 to have produced a copy of mark-sheet of 6th semester showing completion of Bachelor of Computer Application on or before the cut-off date i.e. 2/07/2012.
Placing reliance on the application form submitted by respondent no. 6, it is pointed out that there is no mention of any internet mark-sheet or the marks which are mentioned in the mark-sheet issued on 24/09/2012 i.e. 576 out of 600, in the application form which clearly demonstrates that respondent no. 6 later on changed her version and persuaded the authorities to grant her 50 marks for 3 B.C.A. qualification though she had not completed her B.C.A. course on the cut- off-date. Another ground which is taken by the petitioner is in regard to respondent no. 6 being not a local resident of village Pipraha, Tehsil Sihawal, District Sidhi.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed total emphasis on the single ground namely respondent no. 6 was not having necessary qualification on the cut off date i.e. 2/07/2012 so to obtain 50 marks on the cut-off-date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court to the declaration made by the respondent no. 6 and the list of enclosures wherein she has cut the column of B.C.A. qualification after making a mention of B.C.A. Respondent no. 6 has filed a detailed reply dated 8th March, 2015 in which she has mentioned that at the time of submission of the application form on 2/07/2012, the answering respondent was declared pass in computer declaring the result on internet but was not issued the original mark-sheet. Hence, the internet mark-sheet of B.C.A. along with an affidavit in this regard was submitted along with other relevant documents and domicile certificate.
She has made other submissions about her domicile etc. which are no more bone of contention, therefore, they are not being dealt with separately.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has submitted that the last date for submitting the application form was advanced, therefore, respondent no. 6 had filed a copy of the internet mark-sheet and an affidavit within the prescribed enhanced period. However, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 is not in a position to demonstrate from any of the documents available on record or from a document in his possession that the last date for submission of the application was postponed from 2/07/2012 to any other date. He is also not in a position to demonstrate from the same that any affidavit was filed along with internet mark- sheet by the respondent no. 6. There is neither an internet mark-sheet produced by respondent no. 6 on record nor any affidavit allegedly considered by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner respectively.
There is no certification from the competent authority namely Makhanlal Chaturvedi Vishwavidyalaya that they had issued 6th semester mark-sheet before 4 the cut-off-date i.e. 2/07/2012 and had put those details on the internet. Respondent no. 6 has also not placed on record a copy of the time-table to demonstrate that as and when exams for 6th semester were conducted and when the result was declared. However, no such affidavit or internet mark-sheet has been enclosed by the respondent no. 6 along with her reply.
Thus, in the absence of all these documents, submission of respondent no. 6 that on internet, result was declared in June, 2012 is not made out, there is no mention in the so called internet mark-sheet available at page 39 of the writ petition as was produced by respondent no. 6 along with her application dated 4/10/2012 to substantiate her claim that she had passed B.C.A. examination on or before the cut-off-date i.e. 2/07/2012 and statement of marks were formally issued on 24/09/2012.
Thus, in the absence of there being any documentary evidence to substantiate the case of respondent no. 6, it is evident that both the Additional Collector, Sidhi and the Additional Commissioner, Rewa were not acting bonafidely and had exceeded their jurisdiction to favour respondent no. 6. They have not referred to any material on record to substantiate that any affidavit or internet mark-sheet was filed along with the application as has been noted by the learned Additional Commissioner. A copy of the application as was filed by respondent no. 6 is on record. It has not been rebutted or disputed by respondent no. 6 while filing her reply. In this application, there is a clear mention of marks obtained by her in the 5th semester. There is no mention of marks obtained by her in the 6th semester as there is a clear mention of the fact that in the list of enclosures that she has not ticked the column 'dEI;wVj mRrh.kZ ijh{kk'.
Therefore, there is no material on record to support the impugned orders passed by the learned Additional Collector, Sidhi and Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division.
It is a settled principle of law as laid down in the case of Shankar K. Mandal and others Vs. State of Bihar and others (2003) 9 SCC 519 that a candidate seeking marks for a particular qualification should possess that qualification on or before the cut-off-date for submission of his application.
5It is apparent that respondent no. 6 was not having requisite qualification of B.C.A. on the date of submitting her application being 2/07/2012, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner being based on erroneous considerations and not on the material available on record are liable to be quashed and are set aside.
The appointment of respondent no. 6 is quashed. Respondent no. 3 the Collector, Sidhi is directed to process the case of the petitioner on the basis of merit obtained by him and grant him appointment in terms of the recommendation of the selection committee if there is no other more meritorious candidate than the petitioner, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In above terms, the petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy