Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Pushpmita Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2016
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Writ Appeal No. : 592 OF 2016
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
- V/s -
Prabhakar Sharma & Another
Writ Appeal No. : 599 OF 2016
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
- V/s -
Ashutosh Mishra
Review Petition No. : 611 OF 2016
Smt. Pushpmita Kushwaha
- V/s -
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Review Petition No. : 612 OF 2016
Amit Kumar Mishra
- V/s -
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Review Petition No. : 614 OF 2016
Piyush Kumar Pathak
- V/s -
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Review Petition No. : 615 OF 2016
Upendra Kumar Chaturvedi
- V/s -
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
2
And
Review Petition No. : 616 OF 2016
Mohd. Haroon Iqbal
- V/s -
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon,
Acting Chief Justice; and,
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners in all
the review petitions.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi and Shri P.K. Shroti, learned counsel for the
respondents in both the writ appeals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(17 -10-2016) As the common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ appeals filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005 all the appeals and the applications for review filed seeking review of orders passed in writ appeals by this Court, we proceed to deal with the matter and dispose of all the writ appeals and review applications by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the documents and material available in the record of W.A. No.592/2016 are being referred to in this order.
3. Facts in nutshell go to show that the Government of Madhya Pradesh formulated a scheme for appointment of Gramin Rojgar Sahayaks in the State of Madhya Pradesh under the Madhya 3 Pradesh State Rojgar Guarantee Scheme, the scheme was formulated by the State Government through the M.P. State Rozgar Guarantee Parishad functioning under the Panchayat and Gramin Welfare Department. According to the scheme and policy circulated in this regard on 2.6.2012 (Annexure P-2) appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayaks throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh was to be made in accordance to the scheme / procedure as indicated therein. In clause 8 of the scheme, the procedure for appointment and selection of Gram Rojgar Sahayak was laid down and in clause 8.8 of the scheme the District Programme Coordinator i.e. the Collector of each District was nominated as the person who was to take steps for appointment on the post in question. Under clause 8.8 of the scheme, two different bench marks and yardsticks were laid down for selection; one contained the procedure to be followed under clause (A) when more than 3 applications are received and candidates are local resident of Panchayat and under clause (B) when more than three applications are received and the incumbent is not a local resident of the Panchayat. In both the recruitment scheme formulated, 200 marks were allotted under 5 different categories, as is reproduced in tabulated form by learned writ court in para 5 of its order.
4. In District Rewa, the District Programme Coordinator, i.e. the Collector exercised his power in accordance to the scheme dated 2.6.2012 and issued an advertisement and notified a detailed program, for the selection process in different Gram Panchayats and in the notifications issued by the Collector various dates from the stage of issuance of advertisement to the stage of declaration of result and appointment of the selected candidates were notified. Under clause 9 of the notification issued by the Collector Rewa vide annexure A-4, available in the record of original writ petition, the Collector ordered that after the selection/merit list is prepared, as per the methodology and allotment of marks as stipulated in Clause 8.8 (a) and (b) of the 4 scheme dated 2.6.2012, a computer efficiency test of the selected candidates are to be conducted and based on this efficiency test final order of appointment be issued. The petitioners challenged the act of the Collector, Rewa and came out with a case that this additional computer efficiency test stipulated by the Collector vide Annexure A- 4 is not in accordance to the scheme and it was their specific case before the Writ Court that the aforesaid procedure for holding the Computer Efficiency Test was introduced by the Collector after selection process commenced and advertisement was issued and amounts to change in the rules and the amendment to the process of selection in the midst of selection process is not permissible.
5. The learned Writ Court heard all concern and recorded a finding that in the scheme formulated by the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Rojgar Parishad on 02.06.2012 there was no such stipulation for holding computer efficiency test and in introducing the computer efficiency test by amending the selection notification the Collector has changed the rules of selection process in the midst of selection process, which is not permissible and therefore interfered into the matter.
6. Challenging this order passed by the learned Writ Court earlier certain writ appeals were filed before this Court and when the said Writ Appeal Nos.475/2016, 479/2016, 476/2016, 477/2016 and 480/2016 were dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and orders identical in nature passed by Writ Court were upheld by a Coordinate Bench in which one of us (Rajendra Menon, J) was a Member, pointing out certain error in the order passed earlier in these Writ Appeals, the following four Review Applications namely R.A. Nos.611/2016, 612/2016, 614/2016, 615/2016 and 606/2016 were filed and they are also being heard and disposed of by this order.
57. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State Government argued before us that under Clause 8.2 of the Scheme stipulated by the Parishad on 02.06.2012 the power to issue the programme for selection in the local newspaper and to make selection of the Gramin Rojgar Sahayak is delegated to the Collector and if the Collector, looking to the requirement of the work has stipulated a computer efficiency test, the same cannot be said to be an act amounting to change in the rules in the midst of the selection process. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advocate invited our attention to the notification Annexure A-4 issued by the Collector and tried to argue that this notification was issued well before the selection process and infact the applications were invited for appointment to the post in question by this notification. Every candidate knew the process for appointment and the candidates having participated in the selection process strictly in accordance to Annexure A-4, having undertaken the computer efficiency test, now after being unsuccessful they cannot challenge the act of Collector, Rewa. He argued that it is not a case where the rules were changed either in the midst of the selection process or after the selection process. On the contrary, it is a case where procedure for selection was very well notified to each and every candidate including the petitioners and they having participated in the selection process cannot now turn around and challenge the process of selection having failed in the computer efficiency test. He also tried to express the need for computer efficiency test looking to the requirement of maintenance of records through computer and various other work undertaken in the Panchayats with the help of computer and argued that a Gramin Rojgar Sahayak should have basic knowledge of working in computer. Accordingly, Shri Swapnil Ganguly argued that the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court to say that the order passed by the Collector amounts to change the rules of selection in the midst of the selection process is wholly incorrect and therefore the same warrants interference. He also 6 submits that in the earlier writ appeals decided by this Court, this aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the Court properly, therefore, the review petitions.
8. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi and Shri P.K. Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that even though the order passed by the learned Court is upheld by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and there is no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court, they point out that the Collector is bound by the Scheme formulated by the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Rojgar Parishad, the selection process has to be undertaken strictly in accordance to the scheme formulated by the Parishad, the Collector is only delegated with the power as per scheme formulated and the Collector has no authority to travel beyond the power delegated to him.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and we have also taken note of the rival submissions made by the parties and have also considered the documents available on record. We find that in the matter of appointment of Gramin Rojgar Sahayak to various Gram Panchayats in the State of Madhya Pradesh a comprehensive scheme has been laid down and the scheme has been formulated by the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Rojgar Parishad vide Annexure P-2 dated 02.06.2012 and in para 8.2 of the aforesaid scheme the power to make the selection as per the scheme is delegated to the District Programme Coordinator, and the Collector of each district is nominated as a District Programme Coordinator for implementing the scheme. Clause 8.2 of the scheme indicates that the District Programme Coordinator for the purpose of filling up of the posts of Gramin Rojgar Sahayak has notify a time bound schedule by publication in the local newspaper and according to the schedule so notified the Gramin Rojgar Sahayaks are to be appointed and the entire process of selection conducted. In Clause 8 of the scheme in question it is clearly stipulated that after following the process laid 7 down from Sub Clause (1) to Sub Clause (7) of Clause 8 the selection process shall be conducted as per the policy and the criteria's laid down. Thereafter under Clause 8 (a) and 8 (b), as is evident from the scheme criteria for allotment of marks and the method and procedure for preparation of the select list have been indicated. Clause (A) pertains to cases where more than three applications are received from the candidates who are resident of local panchayat area and Clause (B) pertains to cases where more than three applications are received and the candidates are not the resident of local panchayat area. If we go through the bench mark and allotment of marks done for selection, we find that 100 marks have been allotted to candidates based on the marks obtained by them in the Higher Secondary (10+2) Examination by the Board of Madhya Pradesh or the Central Board for Secondary Education or by a Board recognized by the Government of Madhya Pradesh or Central Government. Thereafter the minimum qualification prescribed is that the candidate should be a Diploma Holder from University recognized by UGC or from Open University and should have passed a Diploma Level Examination from DOEACC and should have also passed Modern Office Management Course from Govt. Polytechnic College or ITI with specific reference to six months training course in Accountancy, Computer Application, DATA Entry Operator, Architect, Assistant etc and 50 marks are allocated under this heading. Finally certain marks are allotted for extra qualification and experience and selection process is to be conducted by allotting 200 marks based on the methodology prescribed under the procedure stipulated. If we go through the procedure so stipulated we find that there is nothing in this to indicate that the Collector or any other authority of the Gram Panchayat is authorized to hold a Computer Efficiency Test or any other test or process for testing the suitability of the candidate. The suitability of a candidate is evaluated under the method stipulated in sub clause (a) and (b) of Clause 8 of the scheme dated 02.06.2012 and the Collector in his capacity as the District 8 Programme Coordinator is only delegated the power by the State Government to hold the selection process in accordance to the scheme formulated.
10. That being so, the moot question that arises would be as to whether the Collector in exercise of powers delegated to him while holding a selection process can introduce a scheme or process for selection, which runs contrary to or amounts to amendment in the process of selection which is not the one laid down by the Government or the Parishad. In our considered view the Collector being an authority exercises the power delegated to him can only exercise such power which is being delegated to him and in the absence of there being any provision or indication in the scheme available which permits the Collector to follow any other method of selection, we are constrained to hold that the Collector does not have any such power. It is a very well settled principle of law that a delegatee exercise powers on the basis of the delegation made to him and cannot travel beyond or contrary to the power delegated to him. In this case the power delegated to the Collector in his capacity as the District Programme Coordinator was to conduct the selection process in accordance to methodology or procedure laid down in Clause 8.8 of the Scheme and the Collector is bound to follow the same and in the absence of there being any specific power delegated to him to introduce something more than what is stipulated in the scheme, we are of the considered view that the Collector cannot act or do anything which is not stipulated in the scheme.
11. Apart from the fact that the collector in his capacity as a delegatee cannot introduce any additional method of selection in the scheme, the act of the Collector, district Rewa, in doing so, i.e, in introducing the computer efficiency test in the district of Rewa alone amounts to an act which is discriminatory and violates the rights 9 available to the candidates in District Rewa, and is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
12. The scheme in question i.e. Annexure A-2 dated 2.6.2012 is a scheme applicable to the entire state of Madhya Pradesh for selection of Gramin Rozgar Sahayaks for filling up thousands of posts in Gram Panchayat throughout the State in more than 50 districts. If the act of the Collector impugned in the writ petitions is upheld, and in the district of Rewa the selection process permitted to be conducted in accordance to the same, it would amounts to a different yardstick or selection process being followed in that district only. We are informed that in various other districts no such computer efficiency test is held after the selection process as per scheme is concluded and if such thing is permitted it would amount to holding the selection process in different district in the state in different manner. That being so, if the Collector of a district in exercise of powers delegated to him by the Parishad under the Scheme dated 2.6.2012 is permitted to follow a scheme / method which is not the one provided by the Parishad, the said selection amounts to holding the selection in different districts of the State in different manner, this would result in violation of the rights of equality available to the candidates under Article 14 of the Constitution. Once the competent authority or the Parishad which is the authority empowered to make appointment to the post in question delegates power to the District Program Coordinator, the delegatee cannot travel beyond the delegated powers available to him under the scheme and hold the selection process in a manner which is not provided for under the Scheme. That being the legal question, we see no reason to interfere into the matter.
13. Accordingly, all the writ appeals and the review applications are rejected.
1014. Before parting, we may indicate that we are informed by Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advocate that in the district in question i.e. Rewa, the entire selection process was done, merit list was prepared strictly in accordance with the scheme contained in annexure P-2 dated 2.6.2012 and based on the merit list prepared the computer efficiency test was conducted and 703 candidates who passed the computer efficiency test have been appointed. It is stated that all these 703 persons are meritorious, their name appear in the original merit list and their selection being strictly in accordance with policy dated 2.6.2012, therefore, the meritorious candidates from selection list, who have passed the computer efficiency test and have been appointed, need not to be disturbed. We find much force in the aforesaid submissions of Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advocate. Such of the candidates who found place in the merit list prepared as per scheme dated 2.6.2012 and if have been appointed after passing computer efficiency test, their appointments need not be disturbed as they have gone through selection process as contemplated under the scheme dated 2.6.2012 and their names find place in the final merit list prepared as per the scheme. That apart, this order shall be applicable only to the set of the petitioners who have approached this and it shall not to be applicable to such persons, who have not approached this Court.
15. With the aforesaid, the appeals and review applications stand disposed of.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (Smt. ANJULI PALO)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
ss