Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anshuman Bramhchari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 W.P.No.15906/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 12th OF JULY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 15906 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. ANSHUMAN BRAMHCHARI S/O SHRI
ARVIND CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT
34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GUEST
TEACHER VILLAGE MANPUR TEHSIL
MANPUR DISTRICT UMARIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANJALI JHARIYA D/O SHRI HARIDATT
JHARIYA W/O SHRI PRAVEEN
JHARIYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GUEST TEACHER
GRAM PANCHAYAT PINDRAI NEAR
MASJID NAINPUR ROAD NAINPUR
DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT. ARCHNA W/O BRAJESH, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED VILLAGE BADANAGAR
TAHSIL KHIRKIYA DISTRICT HARDA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISHA BIRTHRAY D/O RAHUL
BIRTHRAY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED 15
NAYAGAON HOUSING SOCIETY
RAMPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI LALJI KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
2 W.P.No.15906/2023
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR LOK
SHIKSHAN SANCHALNALAYA
GAUTAM NAGAR HOUSING BOARD
COLONY BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MADHYA PRADESH EMPLOYEE
SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY CHAYAN BHAWAN MAIN
ROAD NO. 1 CHINAR PARK (EAST)
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL )
.........................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fixed the qualifying marks in both the examination i.e. eligibility test and selection examination by same qualifying marks i.e. 40% marks fixed for the SC/ST/OBC/Disable/Blow Poverty Line and the 50% qualifying marks are fixed to the candidates belonging general category, in the interest of justice.
II. To, accept the candidature of the petitioners for the Mains Examination of the Teacher Eligible Test - 2023.
III. Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts - and 3 W.P.No.15906/2023 circumstances of the case, be granted to the petitioners."
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 05.06.2023 passed in the case of Om Prakash Gupta and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in W.P. No.12152/2023, (Indore Bench) has issued notices and has also allowed the candidates to submit their application forms for mains examination in pursuance to the advertisement dated 18.05.2023 with a rider that the result would be subject to final disposal of the present petition.
3. It is submitted that State had conducted an eligibility test for High School Teacher and the minimum qualifying marks for the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/Handicapped/EWS was fixed as 50%, whereas the minimum qualifying marks for others was fixed as 60%. Thereafter, the respondents have announced selection test for the post of High School Teacher and as per the said advertisement, the minimum qualifying marks for the category of SC/ST/OBC/Handicapped/EWS candidates have been fixed as 40% and for others, the minimum qualifying marks have been fixed as 50%. It is submitted that the change in minimum qualifying marks amounts to change of rules of the game in the midway and thus, the change in the minimum qualifying marks for selection on the post of High School Teacher is bad and accordingly, it is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that even otherwise the validity of result of eligibility test is for its entire life and therefore, even the students, who had cleared the eligibility test in the year 2018 have been made eligible to contest in the selection examination for the post of High School Teacher.
4 W.P.No.15906/20234. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that eligibility test has nothing to do with the selection process. Eligibility test is a test merely to shortlist the number of candidates and merely because a candidate has passed eligibility test, will not have any right to get selected against any vacant post but he will have a right to appear in the selection examination for the post, which shall be advertised from time to time. Thus, by stretch of no imagination, it can be said that different qualifying marks provided for eligibility test as well as for recruitment test are violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India or will amount to change of rules of the game.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajithkumar P. and others Vs. Remin K.R. and others reported in (2015) 16 SCC 778 has held as under:-
"19. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the High Court is erroneous. The preliminary examination for shortlisting candidates who would be eligible to take the Rule 3 examinations has no statutory basis. Neither the Kerala S&S Rules nor the Rules of Procedure contemplate such preliminary examination. However, this Court recognised [A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath, (2009) 5 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 999] , [Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma v. V. Chrysolite, (2013) 16 SCC 702 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 277] existence of a legal authority to conduct a preliminary examination wherever an unmanageably large number of applications are received for filling up a limited number of posts. Rule 14(e) of the Kerala S&S Rules and Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure relied upon by the High Court refer to "ranked list" -- a defined expression under Rule 2(g) of the 5 W.P.No.15906/2023 Rules of Procedure. Such "ranked list" is prepared only pursuant to the Rule 3 examinations. A preliminary screening test is outside the purview of the Rule 3 examinations. Therefore, irrespective of the content of Rule 14(e) of the Kerala S&S Rules or the third proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure relied upon by the High Court, these Rules can have no application in the context of preparation of a "shortlist" pursuant to a preliminary examination."
7. Thus it is clear that eligibility test for bringing the numbers of candidates within manageable limit is permissible.
8. It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that eligibility test has nothing to do with the recruitment test and eligibility test is conducted in order to shortlist the number of candidates, who can participate in the recruitment process. However, it is submitted that generally speaking, the eligibility test and recruitment test are considered to be the preliminary examination and the final examination and therefore, rules of the game cannot be changed in the midway.
9. It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioners that recruitment to a particular post is never advertised at the time of holding of eligibility test and the eligibility test is conducted just to shortlist the candidates, who can appear in a subsequently advertised post. Preliminary examination and final examination are the part of one selection process. Whenever the posts are advertised, then in the light of large number of aspirants, the employer generally conducts a preliminary examination to shortlist the number of aspirants and thereafter, it conducts a final examination. Therefore, preliminary as well as final examination are part of same recruitment process, whereas in the present case eligibility test has nothing to do with the recruitment 6 W.P.No.15906/2023 process but it merely shortlists the number of candidates, who can appear in the recruitment process for the posts, which are advertised at a later stage. Thus, providing different minimum qualifying marks in the eligibility test and different qualifying marks in the selection process cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 or 16 of Constitution of India and it cannot be said that rules of the game have been changed in the midway.
10. It is next contended by the counsel for the petitioners that since the candidates, who had passed the eligibility test in the year 2018 are also eligible to appear in the recruitment process, therefore, it is violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
11. As already held, the eligibility test is conducted to shortlist the number of candidates, who can appear in the recruitment process for the posts, which shall be advertised as and when available. Any candidate, who otherwise fulfills all the qualifications prescribed under the advertisement or rules, is eligible to contest for the recruitment process. As already held, the purpose of eligibility test is to reduce the number of candidates in the recruitment process. Therefore, no discrepancies could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners by making the list of eligible candidates live for the entire life. Furthermore as a candidate is required to pass eligibility test once in his life time, therefore, it is clear that there is no direct nexus between the eligibility test and the recruitment process. The State cannot debar a person from contesting in the recruitment process by making compulsory that for each and every recruitment he has to clear the eligibility test otherwise in case if such a provision is made, then it would violate the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since the validity of the 7 W.P.No.15906/2023 eligibility test has not been challenged, therefore, this Court cannot consider that aspect any further.
12. So far as interim order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court is concerned, it is well established principle of law that interim orders cannot be treated as precedent. Furthermore, it appears that the interim order has been obtained by misleading the Court. The order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta (supra) reads as under:
"Considering the dispute involved in the case, as the respondents have changed the minimum eligibility qualifying percentage from 40% to 50%, it is directed that the petitioners shall be allowed by the respondents to submit their application forms for mains examination in pursuance to the advertisement dated 18.5.2023, the result of which, shall be subjected to final disposal of the present petition."
13. The use of word mains examination in this order clearly indicates that an impression was given that eligibility test and recruitment test are the part of one recruitment process, whereas this Court has already held that eligibility test has nothing to do with the recruitment process and it is independent to the recruitment process.
14. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in the matter.
15. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.07.12 19:14:48 +05'30'