Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2017
Author: H.P. Singh
Bench: H.P. Singh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Writ Appeal No : 55 of 2017
Sandeep Kumar Pandey
- V/s -
State of MP and others.
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon,
Acting Chief justice; and,
Hon'ble Shri Justice H.P. Singh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advocate,
For respondent Nos.1 and 3, on advance notice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.
JUDGMENT
18/01/2017 Heard on I.A. No.595/2017, an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal.
2- Writ Petition No.9256/2015 was decided on 18.8.2015, and the writ appeal is filed after a period of more than 422 days. Even though serious objections are raised by Shri Swapnil Ganguly, with regard to filing of this appeal, but we find that the legal grounds raised in the writ appeal has already been decided in favour of the appellant/petitioner by Coordinate Benches of this Court in Writ Appeal No.592/2016 decided on 17.10.2016; and, in Writ Appeal No.479/2016 decided on 8.8.2016; and as the appellant/petitioner had already initiated the writ petition within reasonable period, by challenging the selection process, interest of justice requires that the delay in filing of the writ appeal should be condoned and benefit granted to the appellant/petitioner also, as have been granted to identically situated persons.
2Writ Appeal No:: 55 / 2017.
Sandeep Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 3- Accordingly, delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned. I.A. No.595/2017 stands allowed.
4- As the question involved in this writ appeal, which seeks exception to an order-dated 18.8.2015 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.9256/2015 has already been decided by a Single Bench of this Court in more than 25 cases, on 15.7.2016, while deciding Writ Petition No.17183/2014 [Ashutosh Mishra Vs. State of MP and others] and this order is also upheld by a Division Bench of this Court while disposing Writ Appeal No.479/2016, on 8.8.2016 and we see no reason to keep the matter pending.
5- Appellant/petitioner participated in the process of selection to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak held in the District of Rewa at the instance of the competent authority namely - District Collector, Rewa, and after the selection process was concluded as per the notified scheme, Collector, Rewa subjected each and every candidate who participated in the selection process after the merit list was prepared, to undergo a 'Computer Efficiency Test' and based on the computer efficiency test, the entire merit list was redrawn and appointments made. The aforesaid process followed by the Collector was challenged before the writ Court by various persons in Writ Petition No.10350/2015 [Dileep Kumar Shukla Vs. State of MP and others] and various other cases, more than 25 in number, and by a detailed order passed on 15.7.2016, a learned Bench of this Court in the writ petition held that once the selection process has commenced and a procedure for selection has been laid down, then in the midst of the selection process the procedure for selection cannot be changed. It was found by the writ Court that after the selection process was concluded and when the merit list was prepared, the act of the Collector in introducing the 'Computer Efficiency Test' and thereby changing the merit list is impermissible and accordingly quashed the entire selection process and remanded the matter back to the Collector to redraw the merit list in accordance to the original select list. 6- Challenging this order passed by the writ Court on 15.7.2016 in the case of Dileep Kumar Shukla, the writ appeal was filed 3 Writ Appeal No:: 55 / 2017.
Sandeep Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others by one of the aggrieved respondent therein - Amit Kumar Mishra being Writ Appeal No.479/2016; and, the State Government also filed a writ appeal in the matter being Writ Appeal No.592/2016, and both these writ appeals have been dismissed on 8.8.2016 and 17.10.2016 respectively. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has held that once the selection process has commenced, the Rules of the game cannot be changed and placing reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court, the writ appeals were dismissed. In the order passed, certain directions have been issued to the State Government in the matter of granting benefit to certain candidates only and not to all other candidates. The aforesaid directions are contained in paragraph 14 of the order passed by the writ appellate Court on 17.10.2016, in Writ AppealNo.592/2016. 7- Be it as it may be, the present appellant also challenged the selection process by filing Writ Petition No.9256/2015 and by the impugned order dated 18.8.2015, the writ petition has been dismissed only on account of the fact that once he had participated in the process of 'Computer Efficiency Test' undertaken by the Collector, on the principle of acquiescence the writ petition has been dismissed. However, the question of acquiescence and estoppel was already considered and rejected both by the writ Court on 15.7.2016, in the case of Dileep Kumar Shukla, so also by the Division Bench in both the writ appeal filed in the case of Dileep Kumar Shukla (supra) as in Writ Appeal No.592/2016, filed by the State Government.
8- It has been held by the Division Bench that once the entire selection is found to be vitiated and the entire selection is cancelled, the question of acquiescence and estoppel will not come in the way of challenging the selection process. Keeping in view the aforesaid, as the question involved in this writ appeal already stands answered in favour of the appellant/petitioner in the case of Dileep Kumar Shukla and in Writ Appeal No.592/2016, filed by the State, we allow this appeal. 9- Accordingly, we allow this appeal, quash the order-dated 18.8.2015 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.9256/2015; and, the impugned action that was challenged in the writ petition and 4 Writ Appeal No:: 55 / 2017.
Sandeep Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others disposed of by order-dated 17.10.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No.592/2016 and connected matters; and, the order-dated 8.8.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No. 479/2016 (Amit Kumar Mishra Vs. State of MP and others), subject, however, to the observations made in paragraph 14 of the order-dated 17.10.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No.592/2016. 10- With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
( RAJENDRA MENON ) ( H.P. SINGH)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Aks/-