Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Kumar Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2013
W.A.No. 1265 of 2012
Arvind Kumar Khare vs. State of M.P. & others
16/07/2013
Shri A.K. Pathak, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 04/09/2012 passed in W.P.No. 13932/2012, by which, the writ petition preferred by the appellant against an order dated 20th April, 2012 Annexure P/1 of the writ petition, was dismissed. Vide order Annexure P/1 dated 20th April, 2012, appointment of the appellant on the post of Patwari was cancelled on the ground that he was not possessing the requisite qualification of passing computer course with "O" Level Certification from DOEACC/IETE or one year diploma in Computer Application from an institution recognized/affiliated with the University and recognized by the UGC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that:-
(i) The appellant was duly selected, produced the documents including the diploma Annexure P/10 along with the application, the case of the appellant was duly scrutinized on three occasions, thereafter he was appointed, so there was no question of any concealment and the appellant ought to have been continued in the service;
(ii) The appellant was not extended an opportunity to produce a certificate of passing such diploma, as W.A.No. 1265 of 2012 was extended to other candidates, as apparent from the perusal of the document Annexure P/4-A. Raising the aforesaid contentions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this appeal may be admitted for final hearing.
3. From the perusal of the rules for appointment to the post of Patwari, it appears that essential education qualification was Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) with 'O' level certification from DOEACC/IETE or from an institution duly affiliated by the University and recognized by the UGC. The appellant was admittedly not possessing the aforesaid qualification and has filed a diploma certificate Annexure P/10 along with the application. It appears that by overlooking the requisite qualification, the appellant was selected, undergone training and thereafter appointed. On getting an information, he was issued with a show cause notice and after hearing the appellant, the impugned order Annexure P/1 was passed. This order Annexure P/1 was challenged before the writ Court. Learned Single Judge had considered the matter at length and found that in view of the law laid down in W.P.No.1925 of 2010 (Rakesh Yadav vs. State of M.P. & others), the appellant was not possessing the requisite qualification, he was issued a show cause notice and thereafter his appointment was cancelled. In this impugned order, we do not find any error.
4. So far as the contention of the appellant that he was not extended an opportunity, as was extended to other candidates as apparent from Annexure P/4-A for production of 'O' Level Certification from DOEACC/IETE or from an institution recognized by the UGC is concerned, this contention was not W.A.No. 1265 of 2012 raised or prayed before the writ Court. For the first time, we are unable to consider the aforesaid contention of the appellant in this appeal. If the appellant was not extended such an opportunity, then he had to raise such contention before the writ Court and for the first time in this Writ Appeal, we are unable to entertain such contention.
5. In the result, this appeal is found without merit and is dismissed with costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
SJ/-