Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudeep Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2017
1 W.P. No.8869/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SB : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VANDANA KASREKAR.
Writ Petition No.8869/2016
Sudeep Tiwari
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sankalp Koachar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents no.1
to 4.
Shri Priyank Choubey, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(13/11/2017) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 30.09.2015 as well as 25.04.2016 passed by respondent no.3 and 2.
2. An advertisement was issued by the respondents inviting application for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The application form was to be submitted from 07.06.2014 to 21.06.2014, a requisite qualification for appointment on the said post was 10+2 Higher Secondary and additional marks will be given those candidate who has passed 2 W.P. No.8869/2016 B.Com Exam as well as having Diploma in Computer. The petitioner has submitted an application for appointment on the said post. The tentative list was prepared where the name of respondent no.5 was placed at serial no.3. When the records were verified it was found that respondent no.5 has done regular degree or diploma at once which was not permissible. The selection committee also found that respondent no.5 has obtained diploma in computer application on regular basis and in the same year he obtained degree of B.Com as regular in which the result of B.Com was withheld and the petitioner could not cleared all subjects and, therefore, uncleared certificate of B.Com was rejected and, therefore, the selection committee reduced the 30 marks awarded to respondent no.5 on account of B.Com examination. Accordingly, final list was issued where one Sonam Tiwari was placed at serial no.1 having 145.11 marks and the petitioner placed at serial no.2 having 138.68 marks and Rakesh Kumar placed at serial no.3 having 133.56 marks and respondent no.5 placed at serial no.4. The serial no.1 unwilling to join on the said post and, 3 W.P. No.8869/2016 therefore, the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.06.2015. Being aggrieved by that order, respondent no.5 had filed an appeal before the Collector on the ground that the tentative select list was not finalized. He also submits that on the date of submission of the form he could not filed a certificate of B.Com examination. The Collector vide order dated 30.09.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent no.5. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide order dated 25.04.2016 has set aside the final list for selection on the post of Rojgar Sahayak and maintained the order of Collector dated 30.09.2015. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the orders passed by respondents no.2 and 3 are illegal and arbitrary. He submits that as per the advertisement, the last date for submitting the application was 21.06.2014, however, on that date, the petitioner does not 4 W.P. No.8869/2016 passes the degree of B.Com examination, therefore, earlier as in the application form, respondent no.5 has mentioned that he passed the B.Com examination on the basis of the mark sheet in which he was declared failed and, therefore, 30 marks were awarded to respondent no.5 but when it was came to the knowledge of the respondents that the respondent no.5 has not passed the B.Com examination and, therefore, they reduced 30 marks given to respondent no.5. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that from perusal of the mark sheet of B.com VIth Semester it is cleared that the result of the petitioner was withheld. Thereafter, subsequently, the result was declared and a mark sheet was issued to him on 04.09.2014 i.e. after submitting application form and, therefore, respondent has rightly reduced 30 marks awarded to respondent no.5. He further argues that both the authorities i.e. respondents no. 2 and 3. Respondent no.3 has allowed the appear preferred by respondent no.5 only on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted any objection against the 5 W.P. No.8869/2016 tentative select list and, therefore, 30 marks has rightly been awarded to respondent no.5 towards his B.Com examination.
4. Respondents no.1 to 4 has filed their reply. In the said reply they have stated that the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 along with others submitting an application for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat, Sumer. On the basis of the applications, the provisional merit list was prepared in which the name of respondent no.5 was placed at serial no.1. However, in the final list one Sonam Tiwari was declared selected, the petitioner was placed at serial no.2 whereas respondent no.5 was placed at serial no.3. Respondent no.5 challenged the final select list by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector, Raisen. The Additional Collector after hearing the parties to the proceedings and after scrutiny of the record came to to the conclusion that the name of respondent no.5 was placed in provisional select list. After due verification of the records and testimonials and that no objection was raised 6 W.P. No.8869/2016 to the provisional select list. It was further held that as per the new guidelines issued by the M.P. Rojgar Guarantee there are instructions to treat the provisional select list as final list if objection against the provisional select list is not received. As the Sonam Tiwari has refused to join on the post, the petitioner who was placed at serial no.2 became selected and, therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner after hearing the parties has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner on 25.04.2016. Thus, the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Commissioner, Bhopal are just and proper and does not required any interference.
5. Respondent no.5 has also filed the reply and in the said reply he has stated that after issuing the provisional select list no objection was raised by the petitioner before authority concerned and, therefore, provisional select list shall be treated as final list. However, as the name of the respondent has been removed from the final selection list without any 7 W.P. No.8869/2016 objection of the petitioner which is against the directions as prescribed by the State Government the Collector has rightly passed an order. Respondent no.5 further stated that another objection raised by the petitioner that respondent no.5 has passed B.Com degree of the last date of submitting the application form for that respondent no.5 submitted that he passed B.Com examination in the month of April 2013 i.e. before the last date of submitting the application form. However, the selection committee did not award 30 marks to the petitioner as per guidelines issued in the department and, therefore, the committee wrongly removed the name of respondent no.5 from the final selection list. In light of the aforesaid, he prays that the petition deserves to the dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that an advertisement issued by respondent M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The application was to be submitted 8 W.P. No.8869/2016 from 07.06.2014 to 21.06.2014, a requisite qualification for appointment on the said post was 10+2 Higher Secondary Exam and additional 30 marks would be given if candidate posseses B.Com degree as well as diploma in Computer. The petitioner as well as respondent no.5 being eligible for appointment on the said post, they submitted their applications. After scrutiny and verification of the documents, a tentative selected list was published in which the name of the respondent no.5 was at serial no.1 while the name of the petitioner was at serial no.3 that after publication of these tentative list, the record verified in which it is found that respondent no.1 has passes degree and diploma at once which is not permissible and, therefore, 30 marks which is awarded to respondent no.5 towards B.Com certificate was reduced and accordingly, final list was published and in the final list one Sonam Tiwari was placed at serial no.1. The petitioner is at serial no.2 and respondent no.5 is at serial no.4 thereafter appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.06.2015. Respondent no.5 challenged the appointment 9 W.P. No.8869/2016 order of the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector allowed the appeal preferred by respondent no.5. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide impugned order dated 25.04.2016 has confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. As per the advertisement Annexure P-3, application were required to be submitted from 07.06.2014 to 21.06.2014. Thereafter, tentative list was to be published. As per Clause 11 of the said policy, the merit list shall be published and it was to forwarded to the concerning Gram Panchayat. After obtaining the approval from the general meeting of the Gram Panchayat it was to be approved and the objections were to be submitted within a period of 10 days. Clause 12 provides for the disposal of the objection. Clause 12 further submits that if no objection are received against the tentative list then the same shall be treated as final and accordingly an agreement was executed with the concerned candidate. In the 10 W.P. No.8869/2016 present case, both the authorities have found that the petitioner has not submitted any objection against the tentative list and, therefore, as per Clause 12 of the said advertisement, the tentative list has been treated as final list and on the basis of the said tentative list, the respondent no.5 was rightly been appointed on the said post.
7. Thus, in light of the aforesaid, as the petitioner has not submitted any objection against the tentative list and, therefore, it has attained the finality as per the advertisement Annexure P-3. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere into the said writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the said writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(MS. VANDANA KASREKAR) Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD JUDGE TABISH KHAN Date: 2017.11.15 10:36:45 +05'30' Tabish 11 W.P. No.8869/2016 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABAPLUR SB : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VANDANA KASREKAR Writ Petition No.8869/2016 Sudeep Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. & Others.
ORDER Post it for: 13/11/2017 (Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge (10/11/2017)