Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pushkar Singh Adhikari vs Indira Gandhi National Tribal ... on 12 June, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 12th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No.3779 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PUSHKAR SINGH ADHIKARI, SON OF LATE SHRI
SHIVRAJ SINGH ADHIKARI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION-SAHAYAK KHEL ADHYAPAK
(FOOTBALL) SHRI HARI SINGH THAPA SPORTS
COLLEGE LELLU, PITHOURAGARH, R/O. NEAR TAXI
STAND, CHILIYANAULA, RANIKHET, ALMORA
(UTTARAKHAND)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NITYA NAND MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL TRIBAL
UNIVERSITY, AMARKANTAK (M.P), THROUGH
ITS REGISTRAR, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL
TRIBAL UNIVERSITY, AMARKANTAK DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (M.P.)
2. REGISTRAR, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL
TRIBAL UNIVERSITY, AMARKANTAK DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (M.P.)
3. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW
DELHI.
......RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ARPAN PAWAR - ADVOCATE AND SHRI AKSHAT ARJARIA -
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS/UNIVERSITY)
............................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 10.05.2023
Pronounced on : 12.06.2023
..............................................................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
2
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the
following:
ORDER
Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter, therefore, with their joint request, it is heard finally.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is questioning the validity of the order/communication issued by the respondent/University on 25.01.2023(Annexure P/11) informing the petitioner that since he could not produce the documents within the given time for verification, the offer letter given to him stands cancelled and the request made by him for extension of time to produce the documents was also rejected.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the offer letter dated 14.01.2023(Annexure P/5), a week's time was granted to the petitioner to inform the respondent/University the probable date of visiting the University so as to get the documents verified. This information was to be conveyed to the University within a week. In response to the same, on 16.01.2023 (Annexure P/7), petitioner has informed the respondent/University about accepting the offer in the following manner:-
"Thanks for the offer letter....
and I am interested in the same and would join earliest possible after preparing and completing the formalities."
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner thereafter applied before the employer where he was working at the time of participating in the interview of the respondent/University for grant 3 of NOC vide letter dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure P/8) and his request was forwarded vide Annexure P/9. However, on 25.01.2023, he received a mail from the respondent/University that his offer letter has been cancelled and his request for extension of time to produce the documents has also been rejected and, therefore, order/communication dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P/11) has given rise to file this petition and as such, he approached this Court saying that action of the respondent/University is illegal and arbitrary because his claim has been rejected only on the ground that he could not produce the relevant documents within the given time. He submits that on 10.01.2023 (Annexure P/4), he received a letter from the respondent/University to appear in the interview which was scheduled on 13.01.2023 and it was virtually impossible for him to obtain the No Objection Certificate from his erstwhile employer and as such, rejection of his offer letter/appointment is nothing but an arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. He submits that petitioner has made a request to the respondent/University for extension of time to produce the documents including the No Objection Certificate and orally it was accepted by the respondent/University but when he acquired the documents, his request was turned down and the offer letter was also cancelled.
5. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits by way of rejoinder that the interview was conducted online and, therefore, the respondent/University must have the recording of the said interview from which it can be ascertained that he had disclosed this fact to the respondent/University that he was already in the employment at the time of interview and he would also produce the No Objection Certificate from the erstwhile employer but not giving sufficient time to the petitioner and rejecting his offer letter is arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the respondent/University.
46. Shri Arpan Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/University has filed the return stating therein that in the advertisement i.e. Annexure P/3, there was a condition stipulated i.e. 15(ii) which reads as under:-
"Candidate who is already in service should submit his/her application through proper channel. However, he/she may send an advance copy of his/her application and must produce a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and Vigilance Clearance Certificate (in closed cover) from the employer at the time of interview failing which he/she shall not be entertained for the interview."
He submits that as per the said condition, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to submit the No Objection Certificate before the respondent/University while participating in the interview but that was not done. Even the petitioner did not disclose about the past employment, therefore, he was not found fit to be appointed and, therefore, the offer letter was cancelled. He further submits that even otherwise, as per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement if No Objection Certificate is not produced before the respondent/University, his claim could not have been entertained. Therefore, according to him, the action taken by the respondent/University is proper and in consonance with the conditions contained in the advertisement. He further submits that petitioner's intention was not clear because while accepting the offer, he was not very specific that he is coming to join the respondent/University in response to the offer given to him. He submits that the stand taken and response given by the petitioner vide letter dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P/7) and explanation given by him through letter dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure P/16), it can be easily gathered that petitioner was playing mischief with the respondent/University in not disclosing the actual fact for not appearing before the authority in the given time. He further submits that action of the respondent/University 5 cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary because they acted as per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement and it was also known to the petitioner and it was for him to comply with the said conditions and in absence of compliance of mandatory requirement if offer letter/appointment of the petitioner is cancelled, there is nothing illegal in it. He further submits that the given time was completed on 22.01.2023 but till date, neither he appeared before the authority to get the documents verified nor any No Objection Certificate was produced by him before the authority. He further submits that even in none of the documents, it is disclosed that petitioner was in the employment and he wanted to produce the No Objection Certificate for which he was asking more time from the respondent/University. He submits that intention of the petitioner was not clear from the very inception and, therefore, nothing illegal has been committed by the respondent/University in cancelling the offer letter. According to him, the petition is frivolous and deserves to be dismissed.
7. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in response to the submission made by counsel for the respondent/University submits that vide letter dated 25.01.2023(Annexure P/12), the petitioner has disclosed this fact that he was trying to get the No Objection Certificate from his erstwhile employer but it would take time to be furnished and, therefore, the given time was not sufficient and, therefore, he may be granted one week's time to furnish the requisite documents. He submits that not accepting the said offer and not giving additional time to the petitioner is improper and it indicates that the respondent/University was adamant to cancel the offer letter and ultimately that was done by them. He further submits that on 30.01.2023, the petitioner appeared before the respondent/University with all requisite documents but that was not accepted by them and the 6 documents were also not examined by the respondent/University.
8. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
9. A very short question is involved in this case that whether the decision taken by the respondent/University on 25.01.2023 (Annexure P/11) cancelling the offer letter informing the petitioner that the conditions mentioned in the offer letter issued to him on 14.01.2023 was not complied with by him, was proper or not.
10. As per the facts of the case, an advertisement was issued vide Annexure P/3 by the respondent/University inviting applications for different posts. The said advertisement contained several conditions and condition No.15 (i) and (ii) are relevant which reads as under:-
"(i) Mere possession of eligibility conditions shall not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The date for determining the eligibility of all candidates in very respect shall be the closing date as prescribed in the advertisement for receipt of the applications. In other words, no candidate shall be called for interview if he/she does not possess the minimum qualification and experience etc. as on the last date of submission of online application for a particular post.
(ii) Candidate who is already in service should submit his/her application through proper channel. However, he/she may send an advance copy of his/her application and must produce a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and Vigilance Clearance Certificate (in closed cover) from the employer at the time of interview failing which he/she shall not be entertained for the interview."
11. Accepting the said conditions, petitioner submitted an application and participated in the recruitment process but could not produce the 'No Objection Certificate' and 'Vigilance Clearance Certificate' on the date of conducting the interview and, therefore, offer letter has been rejected. The petitioner although sought time from the respondent/University to extend the time limit for producing the 'No 7 Objection Certificate' and 'Vigilance Clearance Certificate' but that request was also rejected by the respondent/authority.
12. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the existing circumstances, it can be easily gathered that the respondent/University has acted arbitrarily. According to him, by offer letter dated 14.01.2023, petitioner was granted only one week's time to visit the University for getting the documents verified but this information was conveyed to him on 16.01.2023 and after receiving the said information on 16.01.2023, he informed that he was interested in the offer made by the respondent/University and would also join earliest possible after preparing and completing the formalities.
13. Although Shri Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/University has pointed out that even on 16.01.2023, petitioner has not informed that he has already working somewhere else and as such, suppressed the fact about his past employment. According to him, nothing illegal has been done by the authority and they only complied the conditions of advertisement which clearly provide that at the time of interview if NOC is not produced, the candidate will not be entertained in the interview.
14. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record itself, it is clear that the time provided to the petitioner came to an end on 22.01.2023 even though he did not appear before the authority for getting the documents verified. When the offer letter was given to the petitioner he could have disclosed the fact that he is already in employment and will take some time to produce the NOC from his employer but this fact was not disclosed by him and for the first time on 25.01.2023, he disclosed this fact that he was trying to get NOC from his employer. The respondent/University did nothing against 8 the petitioner but only complied the conditions. Although in the letter dated 25.01.2023, the petitioner has shown some difficulty to appear before the authority in the given time but according to the respondents, it is for them to consider or not but considering the overall conduct of the petitioner in not complying the conditions of advertisement although the same was accepted by him but he failed to comply the same and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondent/University in passing the impugned order. In my opinion, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when conditions of advertisement were accepted by the petitioner and proceeded in the matter without raising any objection at the very inception of knowing the conditions, the right is vested with the employer to proceed against him and they have proceeded accordingly and as such, in the present facts and circumstances interference is impermissible. However, it is made clear that if still the respondent/University is of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the petitioner can be reconsidered and claim of the petitioner is found justified then they are at liberty to take a decision in his favour.
15. With the aforesaid observations, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO Date: 2023.06.14 17:22:37 +05'30'