Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahaveer Prasad Bansal vs State Of M.P. on 11 October, 2018
1 W.P.No.6088/2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
:SINGLE BENCH:
{HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK}
Writ Petition No.6088/2012
Mahaveer Prasad Bansal & Another
Vs.
The State of M.P. & Others
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Smarti Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of Shri Jitendra
Sharma, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Raghavendra Dixit, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*************
ORDER
(11-10-2018) The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 30.06.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector (Land Records), District Morena, whereby the case of the petitioners has been rejected as petitioners have been declared to be ineligible for participating for selection process conducted by the respondents in the year 2008 for filling up the post of Patwari.
It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners appeared in the examination of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramoday Vishwavidyalaya, Chitrakoot in Session 2006-2007 conducted by the University in which result was declared on 24.06.2008 but mark-sheet was issued on 14.07.2009 in which petitioners were declared to be passed in the said examination. On the basis of their qualification of Computer Diploma (PGDCA through Distance Education) conducted by the aforesaid University, petitioners responded to the advertisement issued by the respondents/State soliciting 2 W.P.No.6088/2012 applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Patwari.
Eligibility test was required to be conducted by the Professional Examination Board and the last date for submission of candidature form was 07.07.2008. Result of the petitioners was declared on 24.06.2008 and as per the submissions of the petitioners, they appeared in the examination in which petitioner No.1 secured 126.69 marks and petitioner No.2 secured 125.68 marks as per Annexure P/2 collectively. It is hereby submitted that petitioners placed their mark-sheet issued by the Board/University in the office of respondent No.3 with request to send them for Patwari training who, in turn, referred the diploma (PGDCA) to the concerned University for verification and the University duly verified the same vide Annexure P/4. Even after verification by the University, respondent No.3 declined to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process for Patwari Recruitment held in 2008, therefore, petitioners alongwith others filed the Writ Petition No.5818/2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2011 by this Court with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioners. This Court issued the directions to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners taking into account that the cut- off date has not been extended in the matter.
Petitioners appeared before the respondent No.3 and submitted the documents as well as their written submissions vide Annexure P/7 and alongwith the copies of diploma of PGDCA vide Annexure P/8 were also filed.
It was the submissions of the petitioners that declared cut-off date was dated 07.07.2008, whereas examination of the petitioners was conducted in February, 2008 and result was declared on 24.06.2008 in which the petitioners stood successful. Therefore, they were eligible for consideration for the appointment on the post of Patwari. The respondents No.2 issued specific directions to all the Collectors for exhausting the waiting lists and inviting the 3 W.P.No.6088/2012 candidates of Un-reserved Category who obtained minimum 50% in the examination conducted by the Professional Examination Board. Petitioners secured 85% and 84 % marks respectively and inspite of that respondents did not call the petitioners for counseling but respondent No.3 did not consider the said aspect and passed the impugned order. Therefore, petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, examination of diploma (PGDCA) was conducted by the competent University in February, 2008 of which result was declared dated 24.06.2008, whereas cut-off date prescribed by the respondents was 07.07.2008, therefore, only problem faced by the petitioners from the University was that the mark-sheet was issued on 14.07.2009 and this was the event which was not in the hands of the petitioners, therefore, petitioners cannot be punished for such act which was not in their hands. Petitioner attained qualification of PGDCA on 24.06.2008 itself and therefore, they ought to have been considered for selection on the post of Patwari. It is further submitted that petitioners secured 85% and 84% marks respectively and they are meritorious candidates in the said examination and cannot be put to rejection but on technical pretext. Respondent No.3 has not considered the controversy in correct perspective. Less meritorious candidates have been selected and sent for Patwari training and offered appointment whereas the petitioners have been left out. Their fundamental rights are violated.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State filed the reply and contested the case by making submissions that the petitioners appeared in the aforesaid examination and got appointment on the post of Patwari but when the matter came in the knowledge of the authorities that petitioners acquired qualification with regards to diploma in Computer Application after 4 W.P.No.6088/2012 cut-off date i.e. 07.07.2008, and therefore, show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and impugned order has been passed while relying upon the judgment of Division Bench passed on 08.03.2011 in W.P.No.2871/2010 (S) (Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar & Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others), copy of which filed as Annexure R/1.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State submitted that cut-off date i.e. 07.07.2008 was never extended, and therefore, the certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners in the year of 2009 after the cut-off date, therefore, they have not been considered and vide impugned order, their case has been rejected. Since the probation period of petitioners has not been completed, therefore, no application of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, arises for consideration. Initially, appointment of the petitioners was contrary to the Rules, therefore, they have rightly been removed. They prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.
Here in the instant case, from perusal of the documents, pleadings and submissions of the parties, it appears that cut-off date for attainment of qualification was prescribed by the respondents/State as on 07.07.2008 and result of the petitioners was declared on 24.06.2008 which is reflected from perusal of letter dated 12.07.2012 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Deputy Registrar (Distance Examination) Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramoday Vishwavidyalaya, Chitrakoot as well as reply (Para 5.3) of respondents. The said letter categorically mentioned the examination session/academic session as 2006-2007 and it further referred that the petitioners appeared in repeat examination which was conducted from 15.02.2008 to 27.02.2008 and result of examination was declared on 24.06.2008 and mark-sheet was issued on 14.07.2009.
5 W.P.No.6088/2012Perusal of the said letter crystallizes the controversy in a meaningful manner because it categorically states that result of examination was declared on 24.06.2008. It means that petitioners were declared as passed on 24.06.2008. It is not a case of the respondents that petitioners did not pass the examination, rather stress is being laid over the date of receipt of mark-sheet.
The question whether the candidate must have prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra. In the catena of the decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the candidate must possess the mandatory qualifications on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhupinderpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. as reported in 2000 (4) supreme 645 has held that eligibility qualification for selection/appointment of the post should be determined on the last date/cut-off date of receiving application.
The question raised in this controversy is also available in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar K. Mandal and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others as reported in (2003) 9 SCC 519. After relying upon the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar as reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18, Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab as reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262, Jasbir Rani Vs. State of Punjab as reported in (2002) 1 SCC 124 and in the matter of Alka Ojha Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission as reported in (2011) 9 SCC 445, it is laid down by the Supreme Court, that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules. Thereafter, it is stated that if there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for 6 W.P.No.6088/2012 applications. Finally, it is laid down by the Supreme Court that if there is no such date appointed either in the recruitment rules or in the advertisement then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ashish Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others as reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ 324 has also taken the same view."
The grant/conferral of degree or issuance of mark-sheet is procedural and ministerial work and if any institution or university because of procedural inertia issued any document or mark-sheet at a later stage then efforts of the candidates cannot be sacrificed at the altar of procedural delay caused by the University. Substantive rights is accrued to the petitioners once the result has been declared on 24.06.2008 and that result proved to be genuine one. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioners did not qualify diploma/PGDCA or the result declared on 24.06.2008 in respect of petitioners was false or a mis-statement. In absence of such exigencies, it is established that petitioners acquired qualification before the last date of submission of application.
This Court in the case of Smt. Renu Devi Vs. Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena reported 2016 (4) MPLJ 223 has considered the scope of cut-off date vis-a-vis acquisition of qualification and held that the acquisition of qualification would be considered from the declaration of result and from the issuance of mark-sheet. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2016 passed in W.A.No.269/2016 (Smt. Mangesh Vs. The Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena & Others) has affirmed the said order dated 19.07.2016 passed in Smt. Renu Devi (Supra) and taken the view that qualification would be reckoned from the date of declaration of result.
The respondents have relied upon the judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh 7 W.P.No.6088/2012 Parihar & Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others in which Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.03.2011 passed in W.P.No.2871/2010 (S) has clarified the position in respect of last date for acquiring the qualification in the present controversy. Division Bench held that last date for acquiring the qualification is 07.07.2008 and the circular dated 27.07.2009 & 26.08.2009 issued by the Commissioner (Land Records) were only in respect of those candidates who already acquired the qualification prior to 07.07.2008 and have submitted the degree certificate/diploma certificate issued by a particular institution uptill 30.11.2009 meaning thereby the said circular permits such candidates to submit the degree/diploma certificate issued under the Seal and Signature of the University on or before 30.11.2009. Here the petitioners have acquired the qualification on 24.06.2008 and they submitted the mark-sheet on 14.07.2009, therefore, from that parameter also they were much before the prescribed date of 30.11.2009. Therefore, the judgment of Division Bench passed on 08.03.2011 in W.P.No.2871/2010 (S) (Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar & Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others), copy of which filed as an Annexure R/1 relied upon by the respondents does not further the cause of respondents, rather supports the case of petitioners.
Here it appears that respondents have taken a pedantic view and have not considered true impact of declaration of result of petitioners dated 24.06.2008, a date which is prior to 07.07.2008, the cut-off date fixed by the respondents.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, petition filed the petitioners succeeds and respondents have caused prejudice, illegality and arbitrariness in arriving such decision. Resultantly, impugned order dated 30.06.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, (Land Records), District Morena is hereby set aside.
Respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with law and if petitioners are otherwise eligible then consequential follow-
8 W.P.No.6088/2012up action shall be ensured by the respondents for taking petitioners into service or sending them for training as the case may be or any other follow-up action required to be done be ensured within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Anand Pathak)
AK/- Judge
ANAND KUMAR
2018.10.12
16:19:20 +05'30'