Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ujma Arshi Qureshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 21 st OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 508 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. UJMA ARSHI QURESHI, D/O SHRI ABDUL LATIF
QURESHI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, STEWARD
GANDHI MEDICAL COLLEGE BHOPAL, R/O
GANDHI MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS KOHEFIZA
BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ARTI SHARMA, D/O SHRI RAMKARAN SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, STEWARD, GANDHI
MEDICAL COLLEGE BHOPAL, R/O GANDHI
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, KOHEFIZA,
BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MR. K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. WARIJA
GHILDIYAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DEAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
GANDHI MEDICAL COLLEGE MEDICAL COLLEGE
CAMPUS, KOHEFIZA, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE COMMISSIONER, MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. SANDHYA AMRUTE, W/O SHRI SHRIRAM
AMRUTE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O S-9
PURWASHA NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 4/8/2024
3:48:02 PM
2
PRADESH)
5. GEETA, D/O SHRI RADHELAL, AGED ABOUT 32
Y E A R S , R/O CHC KHILCHIPUR, DISTRICT
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. ANUBHAV JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS. 1 & 3 AND
MR.UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing Writ Petition No.23465 of 2022, the respondents No.3 and 4 therein are in appeal.
2. It was the case of the writ petitioners that there is a recruitment process for filling up four posts of Steward was undertaken by the respondent No.2. The eligibility criteria was reflected in the advertisement. The writ petitioners along with respondents No.3 and 4 therein submitted their candidature. After publication of the result, 10 candidates were called for document verification out of which only 5 candidates turned up for document verification and all of them were held ineligible by the verification committee on the ground that they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement. Only one candidate namely Neha Saini, who belonged to Other Backward Class category was appointed vide order dated 05.03.2022. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has issued clarification in Madhya Pradesh Swashashi Chikitsa Gair Shaikshanik Aadarsh Sewa Niyam, 2018 and in Schedule-3, for the post of Steward in place of "B.Sc. (Home Science) with Dietetics as one of the subjects" was substituted as "B.Sc. (Home Science) with Dietetics/Food and Nutrition as one Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 4/8/2024 3:48:02 PM 3 of the subjects". Based upon the subsequent development, the documents were re-verified and now in addition to the respondents No.3 and 4 therein, writ petitioners were held eligible based upon their merits and thereafter the respondent No.3 and 4 therein were appointed as Steward vide order dated 20.06.2022. The same was challenged by the writ petitioners and the writ petition was allowed. The learned Single Judge has directed to scrutinize the documents in view of the original qualification and if no candidate is found to be eligible then fresh advertisement be issued for the post of Steward calling applications from the eligible candidates afresh.
3. The same is put to challenge by the appellants on the ground that it is only a clarification which has been issued by the respondent No.3. There is no change in the rules. Dietetics is not a different subject. The clarification issued by the authorities cannot be said to be the change in the rules. There were only two vacancies in general category. The respondents No.4 and 5 herein were not appointed as they were low in merit as compared to the appellants. The respondent No.3 has issued clarification as the subject Dietetics was not being taught in B.Sc. (Home Science) and it was a part of Food & Nutrition, therefore, the respondent No.2 has not committed any error in following the same. The writ court has incorrectly relied upon the judgment and passed the impugned order.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. The only question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the qualification which finds place in the advertisement issued for recruitment on the post of Steward has been subsequently changed or not. Initially the advertisement was issued for the post of Steward. The minimum qualification which was required for the post of Steward was B.Sc. (Home Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 4/8/2024 3:48:02 PM 4 Science) with one subject as Dietetics. After completion of the process and finalization of the result vide order dated 30.03.2022 the Directorate of Medical Education have changed the eligibility criteria just to accommodate the respondents No.4 and 5. Initially the qualification for the post of Steward was B.Sc. (Home Science) with Dietetics as one of the subject which was mandatory and it was changed to B.Sc. (Home Science) with one subject as Dietetics/Food and Nutrition. The comparative chart is reflected in the order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-8 in writ petition), which reads as under:-
l-Ø- inuke iwoZ esa tkjh 'kS{kf.kd orZe ku esa la'kksfèkr vgZrk 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk ch-,l-lh- ¼gkse lkbZUl½ ch-,l-lh- ¼gkse lkbUl½ 1- LVwoMZ ftles ,d fo"k; ftles ,d fo"k;
¼MkbZfVDl gks½ ¼MkbZ fVDl@ Qw
M ,.M
U;wVªh'ku gks½
6. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid, it is reflected that in the initial advertisement and by subsequent amendment, the eligibility criteria has been changed. The rules of the game cannot be changed subsequently. The law with respect to the aforesaid is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases. In the case of K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"24. The merit list and selection list prepared by the Interview Committee and approved by the Administrative Committee, on the basis that there was no minimum marks for interview, however, contained one error. The inter se merit of the candidates was prepared with reference to a total of 125 marks, comprising 100 for the written examination and 25 for the interview. But the Administrative Committee had clearly resolved on 30-11-2004 that evaluation of performance should be with reference to a maximum marks of 75 for written examination and 25 for interview. The written examination was, however, conducted with reference to a question paper set for a maximum of 100 marks. The interviews, of course, were held with reference to maximum of 25 marks. Therefore, it was necessary to scale down the marks secured by the candidates in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 4/8/2024 3:48:02 PM 5 written examination (with reference to a maximum of 100 marks) proportionately to arrive at the marks with reference to a maximum of 75 marks so that the ratio of maximum marks in written examination and interview would be 3:1. If the maximum marks for the written examination was 100 and for the interview was 25, then the ratio between the marks for written examination and interview would be 4:1, thereby altering the prescribed marks, after the selection process had begun. We are, therefore, of the view that the first list required an arithmetical correction, that is, scaling down of the written examination marks to three-fourth of what was secured by them with reference to a maximum of 100 marks, so that the ratio of 3:1 could be maintained in respect of the marks for written examination and interviews.
25. When the Administrative Committee placed the merit lists and selection list before the Full Court, apparently objections were raised on two grounds. One related to the failure to provide the minimum of 50%, 40% and 35% marks for interviews, on the interpretation of Resolution dated 30-11-2004 read with earlier Resolutions dated 24- 7-2001 and 21-2-2002. The second objection was that even though the Administrative Committee had resolved that the marks for written examination would be 75 and interview would be 25, at the time of tabulating the marks, the marks secured (out of 100 marks) in the written examination had been taken into account without scaling it down with reference to a maximum of 75 marks. The Full Court, therefore, appointed a sub-committee of two Judges to examine the matter and prepare a fresh merit list and selection list. The sub- committee examined the matter and submitted a revised merit list by incorporating two changes. Firstly, while tabulating the marks, it scaled down the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination with reference to a maximum of 100 marks, in proportion to a maximum of 75 marks so that the final marks were with reference to a base of 75 marks for written examination and 25 marks for interview as resolved on 30-11-2004. Secondly, it applied the minimum percentage of 50%, 40% and 35% for OC, BC, SC/ST even in regard to interviews and consequently, eliminated those who secured less than the minimum in the interview from the process of selection. The final selection list was prepared with reference to the fresh merit list prepared by incorporating the said two changes.
26. As far as the first change is concerned, we have already held that scaling down is unexceptional as it is in consonance with the criteria decided by the Administrative Committee on 30-11-2004 before commencing the selection process.
27. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 4/8/2024 3:48:02 PM 6 Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum marks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier Resolutions dated 24-7-2001 and 21-2-2002 and held that what was adopted on 30-11-2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them -- P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214] , Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa [(1987) 4 SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 36 : (1987) 5 ATC 148]."
7. The aforesaid was considered and relied upon by the learned Single Judge and finding that the benefit has illegally been extended to the appellants, has allowed the writ petition. No illegality has been committed by the writ court in passing the impugned order. Counsel appearing for the State could not dispute the fact that the initial eligibility criteria which was shown in the advertisement has subsequently been changed by the order dated 30.03.2022. Under these circumstances, no interference is called for in a well reasoned order passed by the writ court.
8. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
THK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 4/8/2024
3:48:02 PM