Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Jatav vs Professional Examination Board on 18 November, 2020
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1118/2020
Rahul Jatav
-Versus-
Professional Examination Board and another
Shri Shreyash Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Diwakar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
___________________________________________________________
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
ORDER
(Jabalpur, dated 18-11-2020) Per : Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice.-
This intra-court appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 4.11.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 6565/2018.
2. The writ petition was for a direction to the respondents to consider him for appointment on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) against the post reserved and vacant for Scheduled Caste 2 category in various departments of the State Government on the basis of marks obtained by him in the Sub Engineer Recruitment Test, 2017.
3. It was contended that the petitioner gave his first preference to Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board whose identification Code was 16-A, and gave second preference to the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department having identification Code 10-B. And if not selected on the first preferred post, he holds a right of consideration for appointment on the second preferred post.
4. Learned Single Single Judge found that the petitioner gave a false declaration while opting for first preference which costed him of his candidature. It held:
"Admittedly, the petitioner holds a Civil Engineering decree in second division, despite that he gave his first preference for appointment in Mandi Board for which the prescribed qualification was Civil Engineering degree in first division. Once a qualification is prescribed for appointment on a certain post/department, it is expected that the candidate should fill the form as per his qualification with due diligence.
A perusal of the application from (Annexure P-3) reveals that against the column "whether he has the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post mentioned in Chapter II ?", petitioner has mentioned 3 "Yes". He has also given an undertaking that in case the information given by him is incorrect, in any respect, his candidature could be rejected at any stage. Relevant portion of the application is reproduced as under :-
"vkosfnr in@inksa ds fy, fu;eiqfzLrdk ds v/;k;&2 esa vYysf[kr foHkkxokj ,oa inokj U;wure 'kS{kf.kd o vU; vgZrk, vki j[krs gSa\ gka (Yes)"
"eSa ?kks"k.kk djrk gWwa fd esjs }kjk vkosnu esa nh xbZ tkudkjh iw.kZr% lR; gSA ;fn esjs }kjk nh xbZ tkudkjh fdlh Hkh Lrj ij lgh ;k ik=rk ekin.M dh vko';drkvksa vuqlkj larks"ktud ugha ikbZ tkrh gS rks esjh mEehnokjh jn~n dh tk ldrh gSA"
Rule 10 (2) of Chapter 1 of the Rules framed by the Professional Examination Board (respondent No.1) for conducting the examination clearly prescribes that if a candidate is selected for a particular department, as per the preference submitted by him, however, at the time of granting appointment and verification of documents, if the educational qualification is not correct as desired in the rules, then the candidature has to be rejected and the preference shall not be transferable.
In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for being appointed in Mandi Board, despite that he opted for Mandi Board as his first preference. It is pertinent to note that he did not correct his form despite 20 days time period being provided for correction of any mistake. Therefore, in view of the undertaking given by him and Rule 10(2) of the rules, his candidature was rightly rejected."
4
5. These findings when tested on the anvil of the cogent material documents on record are in consonance therewith and does not suffer any jurisdictional error as would warrant an interference.
6. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vivek
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Date: 2020.11.19 12:34:53 +05'30'