Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ritesh Kumar Goyal vs Honbale High Court Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 June, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
WRIT PETITION No.11153 of 2021
Between:-
RITESH KUMAR GOYAL S/O
RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD GOYAL,
AGED 36 YEARS, PROFESSION :
SERVICE R/O OPPOSITE SARASWATI
SHISHU MANDIR SCHOOL, RAILWAY
ROAD, DADRI (U.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHREYAS DUBEY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH THROUGH REGISTRAR
GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, JABALPUR.
2. REGISTRAR, EXAMINATION DIVISION,
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH.
....RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SHRI ANSHUMAN SINGH AND SHRI
ANUJ SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATES
FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1)
WRIT PETITION No.11884 of 2021
Between:-
1. POORNANK CHOUBEY S/O SHRI S.K.
CHOUBEY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : STUDENT, R/O D TYPE
REST HOUSE COLONY, DISTRICT
DINDORI (M.P.).
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI , NISHANT DATT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH THROUGH REGISTRAR
GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, JABALPUR.
2. REGISTRAR, EXAMINATION DIVISION,
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANSHUMAN SINGH AND SHRI
ANUJ SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATES FOR
RESPONDENT NO. 1)
3
WRIT PETITION No.11997 of 2021
Between:-
1. ROHIT SHUKLA S/O CHANDRA
SHEKHAR SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS, OCCUPATION : ADVOCATE, R/O
19/1 G, PRITHVIPUR DISTRICT NIWADI
(M.P.).
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI , M. PATERIYA ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
JABALPUR.
2. REGISTRAR, EXAMINATION DIVISION,
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANSHUMAN SINGH AND SHRI
ANUJ SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATES FOR
RESPONDENT NO. 1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
Reserved on : 28.02.2022
Passed on : 13.06.2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per : Justice Sheel Nagu :
ORDER
1. This common order shall govern the disposal of WP No.11153/2021, WP No.11884/2021 and WP No.11997/2021 since all three involve common set of facts and grounds and are filed by petitioners belonging to unreserved (UR) disabled category.
1.1 The only difference among three writ petitions which are being decided by this common order is that in WP No.11884/2021, an additional challenge has been raised to the advertisement and the consequential selection to fill up the vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judge Class-II (Entry Level) on the ground that it only prescribes 4% of posts to be reserved for disabled candidates whereas the M.P. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (for brevity "2017 Rules") mandates 6%. In other two petitions i.e. WP No.11153/2021 and WP No.11997/2021, the challenge is restricted to preparation of merit list pursuant to preliminary examination without providing separate cut-off marks for disabled category.
2. Undisputed Facts :-
2.1 The petitioners in all three petitioners who belong to unreserved disabled category appeared in preliminary examination conducted pursuant to 5 advertisement (Annexure P/1). The marks obtained by all three petitioners in preliminary examination were as follows ;-
S.No. Case Number Name of Candidates Marks Revised Marks
1. WP No.11153/2021 Ritesh (UR) 103 104
2. WP No.11884/2021 Poornank (UR) 99 100
3. WP No.11997/2021 Rohit (UR) 90 -
Pertinently, the cut-off marks for unreserved category which earlier were 115 were later revised to 111. Thus, marks obtained by all three petitioners, were less than the cut-off marks which ousted them from participating in the Mains Exam.
2.2 The relevant Rules (Annexure P/1) governing the process of examination inter alia prescribe thus :-
i) The passing marks in Prelims Exam for unreserved and OBC candidates were 90 while for reserved category (SC & ST) were 82. However, the number of Prelims Exam pass candidates to be invited for Mains Exam were restricted to ten times the number of vacancies to be filled up.
ii) The reservation for disabled category in the impugned advertisement (Annexure P/1) was provided to the extent of 4% which was though satisfied the minimum mandate of Section 34 of 2016 Act but fell short of the 6% reservation mandated for 6 disabled category under Rule 12 of Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 for employment in Government establishment in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
3. From the aforesaid factual details, it is evident that all the three petitioners in the said three petitions secured minimum passing marks of 90 in preliminary examination but were not called the Mains in the face of bar contained in Part- B ([k.M&Þcß) clause (V) (2). Since there were candidates who had secured higher marks than the petitioners in preliminary examination satisfying the 1:10 criteria for participation in Mains examination, the candidature of petitioners could not be considered for the Mains.
3.1 Admittedly, none of the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the said Rule Part- B ([k.M&Þcß) clause (V) (2) contained in Annexure P/1 and therefore this Court need not dwell upon the issue any further.
4. As regards the percentage of reservation for disabled category being only 4% instead of 6% is concerned (as regards WP No.11884/2021), it is noteworthy that the minimum prescribed limit of 4% as per the central enactment (2016 Act) is satisfied. However, the 2017 Rules framed by the State Government providing 6% reservation for persons with disabilities in each Government establishment is apparently not satisfied. However, Rule 12 of 2017 Rules prescribes for 6% reservation for disabled category persons in each Government establishment. The expression 'Government establishment' has been defined u/S 2(k) of 2016 Act as follows :-
7" 'Government establishment' means a corporation established by or under a Central Act or State Act or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government company as defined in Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) and includes a Department of the Government."
4.1 The expression 'Government establishment' apparently does not include the judicial service. The reason is not far to see. No service condition of a judicial officer can be prescribed by way of statutory rules or otherwise, save with consultation of the High Court having jurisdiction over the judicial service concerned.
4.2 Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the 2017 Rules prescribing 6% reservation for disabled category persons have been adopted/applied qua judicial services. In the absence of any such material, the impugned advertisement providing for 4% instead of 6% for disabled category persons, cannot be held to be vitiated.
5. The grievance of the petitioners also seems to be that there should be relaxation in cut-off marks/passing marks for disabled category persons. It is well-known that reservation to disabled category persons falls within the class of horizontal reservation and not vertical reservation. Relaxation in passing marks is available only to reserved category candidates (SC & ST) within vertical reservation. However, no such relaxation is available to any class of candidates availing horizontal reservation unless there are enabling Rules to that effect. In absence of any such Rule, this Court is unable to assist the petitions.
86. In the conspectus of above discussion, this Court is of the view that the petition has no merit and therefore all three petitions i.e. WP No.11153/2021, WP No.11884/2021 and WP No.11997/2021 are dismissed. No cost.
(SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE JUDGE
YS
Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA
Date: 2022.06.16 12:15:37 +05'30'