Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dheeraj Kuamr Mehra vs The State Of M.P. And Ors. on 7 December, 2016

  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
                    JABALPUR.

SINGLE BENCH:            JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                            W. P. No. 2382/2004

                           Dheeraj Kumar Mehra
                                      Vs.
                            State of M.P. & others
____________________________________________________________
     Shri S.R. Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.

____________________________________________________________ (Order) 07/12/2016 In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

(1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to instant subject matter for the purpose of its kind perusal in the interest of justice. (2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dt. 22.03.2004 by which the learned Commissioner rejected the appeal of petitioner.

(3) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of "Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-

1" Maths as in accordance with rules procedure and law as petitioner is duly qualified and eligible for the same. (4) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dt.

-:- 2 -:-

27.09.2003 for recruitment of Shamvida Shala Shikshak Grade-1 Maths of Jila Panchayat, Narsinghpur.

(5) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit.

(6) Cost of the petition.

2. The singular contention advanced by Shri Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner is based on Gazette Notification dated 28-08-2002 (Annexure P/3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 4 of M.P. Lok Sewa (Anusuchit Jatio, Anusuchit Janjatio Aur Anya Pichhde Vargo Ke Liye Aarakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 was amended/substituted. As per this rule, the petitioner being a SC candidate was required to get 10% relaxation in minimum qualifying marks. The petitioner has submitted his candidature with the marksheet of M.Sc. (Mathematics). The said course is passed in third division with 40.25%. Shri Tamrakar submits that as per aforesaid rule, 10% should be added to the marks obtained by the petitioner in the M.Sc. and if such marks are given to the petitioner, his division will become second division. In that case, he will be eligible under the rules.

3. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Government Advocate placed reliance on the recruitment rules (Annexure R/1) namely Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Niyukti Avam Sewa Sharte) Niyam, 2001. By taking this Court to the schedule appended to the said rules, it is submitted that the essential minimum qualification is Post Graduate in second division in the relevant subject. In the recruitment rules aforesaid, no minimum qualifying marks are prescribed. Hence, the question of giving relaxation by way of said qualification (Annexure P/3) does not arise.

4. No other point is pressed by the parties.

5. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

-:- 3 -:-

6. The relevant provision on which heavy reliance is placed by Shri Tamrakar reads as under:-

^^4&d- vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa@vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks U;wure vgZrk vadksa esa NwV&vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks U;wure vgZrk vadksa esa 10 izfr'kr vadksa dh NwV nh tk,xh] fdUrq mudk p;u vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa@vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh p;u lwph esa ls ;ksX;rk ¼esfjV½ ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk,xkA^^ (Emphasis supplied)

7. A plain reading of this provision makes it clear that it envisages that 10% relaxation may be given in "minimum qualifying marks". This general provision/rule may be applicable in such recruitments where eligibility condition is based on minimum qualifying marks whereas in the present case the qualification is prescribed as second division in Post Graduate. Thus, I find force in the argument of the department that amended rule dated 28-08-2002 cannot be pressed into service in the present case. In absence of any minimum qualifying marks prescribed in the recruitment rules, the amended rules dated 28-08-2002 are of no assistance to the petitioner. The singular point raised by the petitioner is accordingly rejected.

8. The petition is dismissed. No cost.

(Sujoy Paul) Judge mohsin/