Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kartar Singh Dhakar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 2018 OF 2020
Between: -
KARTAR SINGH DHAKAR, S/O SHRI RAMDEEN
DHAKAR, AGE - 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION - NIL,
R/O GRAM KHAURIPURA DHURKHUDA POST
PAHADGARH, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
PANCHAYAT SCHOOL EDUCATION, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD,
CHAYAN BHAWAN MAIN ROAD NO.1 CHINAR
PARK, EAST BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION (DPI), BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MORENA,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VARUN KAUSHIK- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND SHRI PRAVEEN NEWASKAR -ASSISTANT
SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
_______________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke, Judge passed the following:
ORDER
2 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the peititoner seeking following reliefs:
(i) That, the respondent No.2 be directed to correct the final result of petitioner in respect of category of reservation and include the name of the petitioner in other back ward class and grant merit position as per category and marks.
(ii) That, after correction in the final result/ mark sheet the respondent No.3 & 4 be further directed to permit the petitioner for submitting candidature in backward class and if found otherwise qualified as per merit be offered appointment letter.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.
Necessary facts for adjudicating the controversy are that the State Government had issued an advertisement and had called applications for filling up the vacant posts for Middle School Teachers, which was called Middle School Teacher Eligibility Test and the test was conducted by the Professional Examination Board. The candidates were called for from 28.09.2018 through online applications, and the exam was conducted on 24.02.2019 and the result was declared on 26.10.2019. On obtaining the mark-sheet, the petitioner found that though he was a backward class student, his name has been shown as a General candidate and, therefore, he could not secured merit position in the Other Backward Class. An application was moved by the petitioner before respondent No.2, but when no response was received by the respondent No.2, the petitioner personally approached the authority and submitted a detailed representation for correcting the entries on the pretext that by a bonafide mistake at the time of submission of the online application form, he could not mark his candidature as Other Backward Class.
In response to the said representation, it was clearly conveyed by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner that said correction cannot be effected, as per the terms mentioned in the advertisement, opportunity for amendment or 3 correction was already given at the time of submission of the form, and after such cut-off date, he had left with no authority to allow the said correction. Since, the correction was not effected, the petitioner moved the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi contended that undisputably, the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class category and in the family of the petitioner nobody is in the government job, and only on account of the bonafide mistake of the petitioner, he could not fill up Other Backward Class in the column of category, due to which, he was included in the open category. It was further contended that the petitioner has obtained 113.31 marks and in open category his position was 1009 and if he was included in the category of Other Backward Class then his position would have been at 300 and he could have found appointment in the respondent/department. It was also contended that the rejection of prayer of the petitioner for converting the category from General to Other Backward Class orally by the respondents is not justified and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner after gathering knowledge at proper stage has raised his grievance and the same should have been considered at the time of uploading of the documents, and since the mistake committed by petitioner was not committed intentionally rather was a bonafide mistake, therefore, such mistake could be ignored and the category of the petitioner could be changed from General to Other Backward Class.
Per contra, Mr. Varun Kaushik on behalf of the respondents contended that as per the rules after submitting form by a candidate, time is provided for amending any mistake committed while submitting the candidature, but the 4 petitioner did not rectify/modify the entries in time as provided in the rules. Now, since the examination is over and the results have also been declared, the prayer of the petitioner to change his category from General to Other Backward Class, is not permissible. Apart from that, it was also argued that if the petitioner is allowed to change his category from General to Other Backward Class then the candidates, who have already been selected under the category of Other Backward Class will get affected and the select list would be required to be changed, which in the circumstances cannot be permitted as for the fault of the petitioner nobody else can be blamed. Thus, in the absence of any rules thereof, the petitioner cannot be allowed to change his candidature from General to Other Backward Class.
Heard the rival contentions.
Admittedly, the petitioner with open eyes has submitted the online form and had not chosen the category of Other Backward Class to which he is alleging to have belonged. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner that he has not chosen the category of other backward class while submitting the form and it was the mistake on his part which he wants to rectify at a belated stage. Rule 2.26 (viii) of Middle Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018 (Annexure R/1), provides that it is obligatory on the part of a candidate to make any corrections with regard to any entries in the application form, but the correction was not done by the petitioner in time. For ready reference Rule 2.26 (viii) is reproduced as under :-
"2.26 fu/kkZfjr frfFk esa tek fd, x, vkWuykbu vkosnu i= esa la'kks/ku dh O;oLFkk &
(viii) la'kks/ku ds fy, fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k ds i'pkr~ fdlh Hkh izdkj dk la'kks/ku ekU; ugha gksxkA vH;FkhZ ds fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vkosnu ij ih-bZ-ch- n~okjk fopkj ugh fd;k tk;sxk rFkk vH;FkhZ ds i= dks uLrho} djrs gq;s ih-bZ-ch- n~okjk izfrmRrj ugha fn;k tk;sxkA"5
The contention of the petitioner that he belongs to a poor agriculturist family and inadvertently he had committed a mistake cannot be accepted at this belated stage as there is specific rule provided for making correction in the entries, which was not availed by the petitioner, and now at this stage, when the much water has flown i.e. the examination as well as declaration of results have already been taken place way back in the year 2019, the corrections in the application form cannot be allowed.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is required in the matter. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
neetu
NEETU
SHASHANK
2022.03.14
14:53:19
+05'30'