Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Lal Shah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 November, 2022
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 28th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 5425 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
BHARAT LAL SHAH S/O SHRI JAMUNA PRASAD
SHAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, VILL. DHEKA,
POST MADA, TAH. AND DISTT. SINGROULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARVIND KUMAR PATHAK, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CONTORLLER M.P. PROFESSIONAL
EDUCATION BOARD CHAYAN BHAWN MAIN
ROAD NO.1 CHINAR PARK [EAST] BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DISTT. PAN. REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHIKHA SHARMA, PANEL LAWYER )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner while praying for following reliefs:-
(i) To issue direction to the respondents to arrange councilling of the petitioner and give him appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak according to his merit.
(ii) To call for entire record for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court pertains to the matter of petitioner.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 12/2/2022 1:52:23 PM 2
(iii) To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein participated in the process of selection against the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak (Maths). The petitioner was issued an intimation letter dated 14.02.2011, by which the petitioner was called upon to participate in counselling on the same date i.e. 14.02.2011 at around 11.00 am in the office of Zila Panchayat Rewa. Counsel further contends that this communication dated 14.02.2011 was received by the petitioner on 23.02.2011 (Annexure P/3) and to demonstrate that an envelope has been brought on record. Therefore, this petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in counselling and extend the benefit of appointment against the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak to the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, undisputedly notice dated 14.02.2011 was received by the petitioner on 23.02.2011 and therefore, the petitioner was not extended the opportunity to participate in the process of counselling inasmuch as, it was beyond imagination that upon receipt of intimation on 23.02.2011, the petitioner had any opportunity to appear in the process of counselling on 14.02.2011. Therefore, counsel submits that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that in the present case, the counselling was conducted in which there was participation of large number of candidates. The notice of counselling was given to the candidates through paper publication and paper publication was made in newspaper having circulation in local vicinity and in vernacular language as well which is evident from Annexure R/2. It is further contended by counsel for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 12/2/2022 1:52:23 PM 3 respondents/State that the notice in fact was issued to the petitioner on 07.02.2011 with dispatch number 4288 and to substantiate this contention regarding dispatch number, a copy of extract dispatch register is also placed as Annexure R/1. Counsel submits that even upon accepting the petitioner's contention regarding non-acceptance of notice for counselling, the petitioner could have appeared for counseling as the notice was published in as many as three local newspapers and on the strength of said paper publication itself, other candidates participated in the process of counselling. Counsel further submits that so far as Annexure P/3 is concerned, the date is interpolated inasmuch as, the original notice is filed with the return as Annexure R/3, therefore, submits that there is no substance in the petition and deserves to be dismissed.
Heard rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record. To deal with the contentions as advanced by counsel for the petitioner, it is first important to take note of Annexure P/3 filed with the petition.
A perusal of Annexure P/3 dated 14.07.2011 reveals that there is a dispatch number at the left hand side at the top which reflects that the dispatch number is 4288. The said Annexure P/3 has also been filed by the respondents alongwith their return as Annexure R/3. In Annexure R/3, at the left hand, there is dispatch number 4288 and at the right hand, the date is mentioned as 07.02.2011, however, the name of the person to whom the said letter is addressed, is not mentioned in Annexure R/3. Undisputedly, both communications are said to be signed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Rewa, District-Rewa.
According to contention of the petitioner, the said communication was received by the petitioner on 23.02.2011, therefore, the manner in which the candidates were required to inform about the schedule date of counselling, is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 12/2/2022 1:52:23 PM 4 required to be considered in the present case. Apart from the communications which have been sent to the petitioner vide Annexure R/3, the entire programme regarding counselling was published by the respondents in three newspapers having circulation in the same vicinity and in vernacular language. Annexure R/2 filed along with the return has not been disputed by the petitioner.
It is also not disputed by the petitioner that no paper publication was made by the respondents. The contention of the respondents that other candidates on the strength of the paper publications only participated in the process of counselling and accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware about the dates of counselling is misconceived. The averments regarding paper publication have not been disputed by the petitioner in rejoinder.
Even for the sake of assumption, if it is believed that the notice which was issued to the petitioner on 07.02.2011 contained in Annexure R/2 was received by him on 23.02.2011, yet the petitioner was placed on notice upon issuance of the paper publication regarding the schedule date of counselling on 14.02.2011. There are specific averments by the respondents in their return that other candidates also appeared in the process of counselling on the basis of paper publication and such averments, in absence of any rebuttal by the petitioner, are treated to be undisputed.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, as there is no dispute by the petitioner as regards the paper publication containing the notice regarding schedule date of counselling dated 14.02.2011, the interference with the process which was conducted way back in 2011 i.e. approximately 11 years back, at this stage, is not warranted.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 12/2/2022 1:52:23 PM 5Accordingly, the writ petition sense substance stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 12/2/2022 1:52:23 PM