Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudeep Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 601
1 WA-262-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WA-262-2018
(SUDEEP TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-07-2018
Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Dhagat, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Priyank Choubey, Advocate for respondent No.5.
In the present intra Court appeal, a challenge has been made to an order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner in respect of appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak has been affirmed.
2. The facts, in short, are that an advertisement was issued by the respondents inviting application for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The date for submission of application was from 7.6.2014 to 21.6.2014. Requisite qualification which was required for the post was 10+2 Higher Secondary and additional marks were to be given to those candidates who have B.Com Degree as well as Diploma in Computers. The desired qualification was mentioned in Clause 4(b)(v) of ITI, DCA and B.Com. A tentative select list was prepared in which the name of respondent No.5 Dharmendra was placed at Srl. No.1 and the name of present appellant was at Srl. No.3. Later, it was found that respondent No.5 Dharmendra has done Degree and Diploma simultaneously and therefore, he was not entitled for 30 marks for obtaining B.Com Certificate and those marks were deducted and his name was placed lower in the merit list, accordingly, final select list was prepared where one candidate Sonam Tiwari was at Srl. No.1 having 145.11 marks and appellant was at Srl. No.2 having 188.68 marks and at Srl. No.3 name of one Rakesh Kumar was mentioned who obtained 133.56 marks and the name of respondent No.5 was placed at Srl. No.4. The candidate whose name was mentioned at Srl. No.1 i.e. Sonam Tiwari refused to join and 2 WA-262-2018 therefore, the appellant was appointed on the said post.
3. Being aggrieved with the appointment of present appellant, the respondent NO.5 Dharmendra filed an appeal before the Collector against the final list and selection of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The Collector by his order dated 15.10.2014 allowed the appeal and set aside the final select list. The said order of Collector was challenged by the present appellant in Revision before the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal. The said revision was also rejected by the Commissioner, Bhopal vide his order dated 25 th April, 2016 and the order of Collector was maintained.
4. Appellant filed writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders of the Collector and the Commissioner on the ground that as per the advertisement, the last date for submission of the application was 21.6.2014 and on that date respondent No.5 did not possess the Degree of B.Com and in the earlier application form he has mentioned that he had passed B.Com on the basis of mark-sheet in which he was declared ‘fail’, therefore, 30 marks awarded to him were reduced. The main contention of the appellant in challenging the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner is that the respondent No.5 was not entitled for 30 marks as he had done two regular Degree and the Diploma Courses simultaneously.
5. Per contra, the counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that he was possessing requisite qualification as on the last date of submitting the application. It is submitted that he had passed B.Com in the month of April, 2013 before the last date of submission of the application form. Copy of mark-sheet was placed on record as Annexure R5/1. He further contended that as per clause 8(12) of the Advertisement, the tentative list had attained finality as no objection was raised, therefore, the Collector has rightly set aside the final select list as tentative final list has become final and he was rightly awarded 30 marks for possessing B.Com qualification. The said order has further been affirmed by the Commissioner on the ground that once the provisional list had become final after expiry of the period mentioned in Clause 8(12) then the name of the respondent No.5 could not have been deleted. It is further 3 WA-262-2018 submitted by him that after the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, his name was placed at Srl. No.2 in the select list and since the candidate at Srl. No.1 had refused to accept appointment, he has been appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak by order dated 11.6.2016 which has been placed on record as Annexure R5/2.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the appellant that the respondent No.5 was not entitled for 30 marks for possessing B.Com Degree. He could not point out any rule or any provision of law which prohibits for passing of B.Com and Diploma simultaneously. The Collector and the Commissioner have recorded specific finding that the respondent No.5 had submitted his B.Com mark-sheet and thereafter, his name was included in the tentative merit list and after expiration of statutory period as prescribed under Clause 8(12) of the advertisement, the said list had attained finality and there could not have been any change in the final select list. Those findings have been affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Since the authorities and the Writ Court have recorded the finding that respondent No.5 was entitled for 30 marks for possessing B.Com Degree and the tentative merit list had attained finality as per Clause 8(12) of the Scheme of the appointment, we do not find any case warranting interference in this intra court appeal.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
mrs. mishra
Digitally signed by DEEPA MISHRA
Date: 2018.07.16 02:32:49 -07'00'