Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alok Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2017
W.P. No.6627/2017 1
(Alok Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
4.10.2017.
Shri Saket Udeniya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.
Petitioner has filed this petition submitting therein that he
was a candidate in the examination conducted by Professional
Examination Board for recruiting Assistant Grade III, Stenographer,
Steno Typist, Data Entry Operator, I.T. Operator and other posts
through Joint Recruitment Examination, 2016. According to the
petitioner, he had successfully competed in the examination and
was assigned role No.21764428. Thereafter in the selection list his
name appears at serial No.9 under unreserved open category and
thereafter a communication was issued in his favour vide Annexure
P/7 by the Joint Director, Directorate of Women Empowerment, MP,
asking him to submit all his documents for verification. Thereafter, a
list Annexure P/1 has been issued, which is a revised list, in which
name of the petitioner does not find mention.
It is petitioner's contention that there was no requirement for
Computer Proficiency Certification Test (hereinafter shall be
referred to as "CPCT") Score Card in the advertisement Annexure
P/3, yet arbitrarily introducing such requirement, petitioner's
candidature has been scrapped and list Annexure P/1 has been
issued. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Indore Bench of
this High Court in W.P.No.7880/16 and W.P.No.7883/16 dated
5.9.17 wherein under the similar facts and circumstances petition
was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground
that qualification prescribed under the recruitment Rules framed by
the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the statutory
recruitment Rules i.e. the qualification of possessing CPCT score
card, is not mandatory. He has also placed reliance on the
judgment of Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6110/17 dated
W.P. No.6627/2017 2
22.9.17 which has been passed relying on the order dated 5.9.17.
In this backdrop, he submits that this petition be allowed.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate has drawn
attention of this Court to the fact that in exercise of its authority
under Article 309 of the Constitution His Excellency Governor of
M.P. has framed recruitment rules, namely Madhya Pradesh Junior
Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013 and in these
rules, he submits that as per the provisions contained in Rule 10(1)
C the qualification of holding a CPCT Score Card has been made
mandatory and since these rules have not been considered by
Indore Bench of this High Court while deciding W.P.No.7880/16 and
7883/16, so also W.P.No.6110/17, this petition cannot be allowed.
He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Indore Bench dated
15.9.17 passed in W.P.No.6100/17 wherein petitioners therein had
made a prayer to consider their candidature despite of the fact that
petitioners do not hold the certificate of CPCT. Learned Govt.
Advocate further submits that in fact General Administration
Department has issued order dated 26th February, 2015, making it
mandatory for a candidate to hold CPCT score card as is
mentioned in para 3 (vi) of the said circular. He also submits that in
fact petitioner has only produced scattered leaves from the
advertisement, whereas the complete advertisement as was issued
by the professional examination board on page 6 categorically
mentions about circular dated 26th February, 2015 and another
circular dated 27.7.16, making CPCT certificate to be mandatory,
therefore, no fault can be attributed in prescription of such
qualification in the impugned order, and therefore, action of the
respondents in not recommending the name of the petitioner for
want of CPCT qualification cannot be faulted with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this aspect of notification dated 26th February, 2015 has been considered by the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7880/16 and 7883/16 and has W.P. No.6627/2017 3 held that executive instructions will not supersede the recruitment Rules framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the qualification prescribed under the recruitment Rules are only the qualifications required as qualifications for a particular post, and therefore, it allowed the writ petitions.
Full Bench of this Court in Manoj Kumar Purohit and others vs. State of M.P. & Ors. as reported in 2016(1) M.P.L.J. 449 had an occasion to deal with such issue and in para 11 (b) of the said judgment Full Bench has made certain observations that it is well established that a new service condition may be brought into effect by an executive instructions and such condition would remain in force as long as it is not repealed either expressly or by necessary implication by another executive order or a Rule made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or by a statute. It was further held under the facts and circumstances of that case that a specific stipulation of passing Hindi typing test can always be prescribed in absence of any specific bar in the Rules. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sitaram Jivyabhai Gavali vs. Ramjibhai Potiyabhai Mahala and others as reported in AIR 1987 SC 1293, so also in the case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. Rajendra K. Verma as reported in (2004) 13 SCC 706. In view of such judgment of Full Bench of this Court and that of Supreme Court which provides that a new condition may be brought into effect by an executive instructions, it cannot be said that after amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013 vide notification dated 16.2.2015, such rules could not have been fortified by executive instructions contained in GAD circular dated 26 th February, 2015, specially when there is no such embargo on the authority of the W.P. No.6627/2017 4 State from prescribing such qualifications in the Rules of 2013, specially when it is provided for group IV category candidates that candidates must have passed Higher Secondary Examination and must have diploma in Computer Application/Certificate from the recognized University, with proficiency in Hindi Typing on Computer at a speed of 30 words per minute; from any Institute recognized by the Government for Stenographer, the candidate must have passed English or Hindi Shorthand Examination at a speed of 100 words per minute from any recognized Institution/Council; and for Steno- typist the candidate must have a speed in English or Hindi shorthand of 80 words per minute as recognized by the General Administration Department from time to time. There is no stipulation in the Rule 10(b) that qualifications as are recommended by the General Administration Department from time to time cannot be made applicable. Therefore, this Court is in respectful disagreement with the findings recorded in W.P.No.7880/16 and 7883/16 and is of the opinion that prescription for CPCT score card could have been prescribed by the General Administration Department as has been prescribed vide circular dated 26 th February, 2015 and it does not supersede the recruitment rules framed by the State Government but only fortifies them, for which there is a provision in the recruitment Rules of 2013 itself. Therefore, the petition has to fail inasmuch as no arbitrariness can be attributed to prescription of such qualification of holding CPCT score card as a mandatory condition. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge ms/-