Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Neelam Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 1078
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
:: 1 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others )
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT GWALIOR
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018
Smt. Neelam Parmar ...APPELLANT
Versus
State of M.P. and others ...RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Agarwal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshni, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Ravi Gupta,
learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 9.10.2018 28.10.2015
Date of decision : 23.10.2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per Sanjay Yadav, J.
:: 2 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) (1) This appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 is directed against the order dated 7.9.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.18507/2018 whereby the challenge to order dated 7.8.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena affirming the order dated 11.4.2018 passed by Collector, Morena of setting aside the appointment as Up-
Aanganwadi Karyakarta, Aanganwadi Centre Man Singh Ka Pura, Gram Panchayat Hingonakhurd, Tahsil and District Morena has been upheld.
(2) Relevant facts giving rise to the controversy briefly are that, the respondents no.4 and 5 in pursuance to policy of the State Government, Department of Women and Child Development as to the appointment of Aanganwadi Worker, invited applications in the year 2013 for appointment of Up- Aanganwadi Karyakarta, Aanganwadi Centre Man Singh Ka Pura, Village Panchayat Hingonakhurd, Tahsil and District Morena. That along with other persons, the appellant and respondent no.6 also applied for the post. After scrutiny respondent no.6 was provisionally selected. The appellant though having better qualification was not selected as the :: 3 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) mark-sheet of Class V and Class VIII was not enclosed with the application. The appellant submitted her objection on 19.6.2013 before the selection committee along with the copy of Class V and Class VIII mark-sheet. The objection was upheld, the appellant was appointed as Up-Aanganwadi Karyakarta by order dated 1.9.2014.
(3) Aggrieved, respondent no.6 preferred an appeal before Collector, Morena who by his order dated 11.4.2018 set aside the appointment of the appellant and upheld the selection of respondent no.6, on the finding that the District Selection Committee was not justified in considering the mark-sheet which were not filed with the application form, but with the objection raised.
(4) Aggrieved, the appellant preferred second appeal which being dismissed on 7.8.2018, led the appellant file the Writ Petition No.18507/2018. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment.
(5) Learned Single Judge posing the issue "as to whether under the scheme governing the process of recruitment and other conditions of service of Aangwadi Karyakarta and Sahayaka can an incomplete application of a candidate be :: 4 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) allowed to be completed after expiry of last date of filling of application and as late as consideration of objections invited against the tentative/provisional merit list", held:
"A bare perusal of the scheme Annexure P/3 reveals that for Aaganwadi Sahayaka minimum educational qualification is 5th class pass and therefore the application preferred by the candidate pursuant to the advertisement should be accompanied by the documents revealing the basic minimum educational and other qualifications. Admittedly, the application submitted by the petitioner did not contain class 5th mark-sheet. After expiry of last date of receipt of application and preparation of provisional merit list, objections were called and during the consideration of objections by the committee of six members under clause 4 of the policy, the class 5th marksheet of petitioner was placed before the Committee which accepted the same and treated the incomplete application of petitioner to be complete. Consequently, the candidature of petitioner was not only treated to be eligible, but most meritorious which led to appointment of petitioner.
There is nothing in the scheme which permits adoption of backdoor or surreptitious mode of allowing a candidate to remove the defects of her application after expiry of last date for submission :: 5 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) of application.
If any such backdoor or surreptitious procedure is permitted, then it would open Pandora's box where every candidate who has filed incomplete application will come forward after the last date of submission of application seeking removal of defect/deficiency in his application.
The concept of last date of acceptance of application has its own importance and sanctity. This is the time barrier fixed by the recruiting agency up to which all the aspirants can file application which are complete in terms of procedure provided. If there is no procedure provided, then it is implied that the application should contain bare minimum details and supportive documents to demonstrate that the candidate is eligible to be considered for the post in question. If the provisions governing the process of recruitment do not prescribe for any opportunity of correcting the defect/deficiencies in the application then the said defect/deficiencies cannot be corrected after expiry of last date for submission of application form.
The conduction of recruitment for public employment ought to reflect transparency and equanimity of procedure subject to which all the candidates are considered. The rules of recruitment should equally apply to every candidate applying for :: 6 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) public employment. If this last date is relaxed then it should be either relaxed for everyone or for none. In this manner the vices of arbitrariness, discrimination, nepotism, whims and fancy are kept away from polluting the process of recruitment for public employment thereby preventing the process from being sacrificed at the alter of Article 14/16 of Constitution of India. In view of above discussion, both the appellate authorities i.e. the Commissioner and as well as Collector have taken the right decision which cannot be found fault with.
(6) The question which thus crops up for consideration is whether while possessing the essential qualification, the incumbent like the appellant can be deprived of the consideration because with the application form the copy of mark-sheet of Class V and Class VIII were not enclosed.
(7) The answer depends on as to whether the rule mandates the accompaniment of the credentials with the application form. And whether the advertisement mandated such condition.
(8) The policy which governs the appointment of Aanganwadi Karyakarta and Aanganwadi Sahayika is brought in vogue vide Circular No.F-3-2/06/50-2 dated 10.7.2007;
wherein different criteria have been laid down respectively for :: 7 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) the Aanganwadi Karyarkata and Aanganwadi Sahayika. Though in the case at hand the post has been nomenclatured as Aanganwadi Karyakarta; however, it appears from the record of selection which is presented at the time of hearing that since the post is for Up-Aanganwadi Karyakarta, the selection committee considered the candidates as per norms laid down for the Aanganwadi Sahayika, which as per policy stipulates the following :
¼c½vkaxuckM+h lgkf;dk ¼ekulsoh½ izR;sd vkaxuckM+h dsUnz ij vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ dh lgk;rk ds fy;s ,d lgkf;dk dh fu;qfDr dk izko/kku gSA lgkf;dk vkaxuckM+h dsUnz esa iks"k.k vkgkj rS;kj ,oa forj.k djus dk dk;Z] dsUnz esa cPpksa dh lkQ&lQkbZ ] ikuh dh O;oLFkk] NksVs cPpksa dks ykus ys tkus rFkk vU; xfrfof/k;ksa esa dk;ZdrkZvksa dh lgk;rk djrh gSA c&1 % vkaxuckM+h lgk;rk dh fu;qfDr gsrq vgZrk,as %& vkaxuckM+h lgkf;dk gsrq p;fur dh tkus okyh efgyk dh fuEukuqlkj vfuok;Z vgZrk,a gksuh pkfg;s %& ¼1½ vkosfndk dh U;wure mez 18 o"kZ ,oa vf/kdre mez 45 o"kZ gksuk pkfg;sA vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ ds fy;s ftls dys.Mj o"kZ esa p;u fd;k tkuk gks ml dys.Mj o"kZ esa 1 tuojh dks vkosfndk dh mez 18 ls de ,oa 45 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugh gksuk pkfg;sA ¼2½vkosfndk lacaf/kr xkze@uxjh; {ks= ds okMZ dh LFkk;h fuoklh gksuk pkfg;sA xkze@uxjh; {ks= ds okMZ esa LFkk;h fuoklh ds izek.k ds fy;s jk'ku dkMZ@lacaf/kr xkze@uxjh; {ks= ds okMZ dh :: 8 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) v?kru ernkrk lwph@chih,y lwph esa efgyk dk uke ntZ gksuk pkfg;s vFkok vfookfgr efgyk gksus ij mlds firk dk uke rFkk fookfgr gksus ij mlds ifr dk uke ntZ gksuk pkfg;sA mDr nksuks Hkh miyC/k ugha gksus ij ,l0Mh0,e0@rglhynkj }kjk tkjh izek.k i= dks LFkkbZ fuoklh gsrq mi;ksx esa fy;k tk ldrk gSA ¼3½'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk& vkaxuckM+h lgkf;dk ds in gsrq U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikWpoh d{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk vko';d gSA ¼4½ p;fur dh tkus okyh vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ dks uk rks Lo;a ljdkjh deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh vFkok iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvkasa@uxjh; fudk;ksa ds fuokZfpr vFkok euksuhr lnL; gksuk pkfg;s vkSj uk gh p;u izfdz;k ls izR;{k laca/k j[kus okyksa dh lxs laca/k gksuk pkfg;A lxs lacaf/k;ksa ls vfHkizk; ekrk]firk] HkkbZ] cgu] ifr]ifRu] iq= ] iq=h ,oa iq=o/kqA c&2% vkaxuckM+h lgkf;dk ds fu;qfDr ds ekin.M ¼;ksX;rk lwph½%& p;u lfefr }kjk vkaxuckM+h dsUnzokj ;ksX;rk lwph ¼eSfjV fyLV½ rS;kj dh tk;sxhA eSfjV lwph rS;kj djus gsrq vf/kdre 100 vad fuEukuqlkj fn;s tk;saxs& 1- vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh efgyk ds fy;s 10 vad 2- xjhch js[kk ds uhps jgus okys ifjokj dh efgyk ds fy, 10 vad 3- fo/kok@ifjR;Drk@rykd'kqnk@30 o"kZ ls vf/kd vk;q dh vfookfgr efgyk ds fy, 10 vad 4- ikapoh d{kk esa 40 izfr'kr rd 30 vad ,oa 40 izfr'kr ls vf/kd vad ij izR;sd 2 izfr'kr ij 1 vad 5- vkBoha d{kk ;k mlls vf/kd 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk gksus ij 10 vad (9) Clause l&1 lays down the procedure inviting application as per Appendix -One, it stipulates:
l& p;u o fu;qfDr dh izfdz;k%& l&1 vkosnu vkea=.k %& :: 9 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dk in fjDr gksus ij dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds p;u gsrq vkosnui= vkeaf=r fd;s tk;saxsA ;g vkosnu i= ifjf'k"V&,d esa layXu izk:i esa vkeaf=r fd;s tk;sxsaA vkosnu vkea=.k gsrq i;kZIr izpkj&izlkj fd;k tk;sA vkosnu vkea=.k dh lwpuk dysDVj dk;kZy;] eq[;dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r] efgyk ,oa cky fodkl ifj;kstuk dk;kZy;] rglhy dk;kZy;] eq0dk0 vf/k0 tuin iapk;r ] ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh] cky fodkl ifj;kstuk ,oa ftl xkze esa vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dk in fjDr gS]ml lacaf/kr xkze iapk;r ds lwpuk Qyd ij Hkh pLik fd;k tk;sxkA vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dk in uxjh; {ks= esa fjDr gksus dh n'kk esa lwpuk eq[; uxjikfydk vf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa Hkh pLik dh tk;sxhA ,d ls vf/kd vkaxuckM+h dsUnzksa esa in fjDr gksus dh n'kk esa dysDVj vius foosd ds vuqlkj lekpkj i=ksa esa foKkiu izdkf'kr dj vkosnu i= vkeaf=r dj ldsaxsA vkosnu i= lacaf/kr ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh] cky fodkl ifj;kstuk ds dk;kZy; esa tek fd;s tkossxsaA ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk vkosfndk dks vkosnu i= izkfIr dh jlhn layXu ifjf'k"V&nks esa fu/kkZfjr izi= esa iznk; dh tk;sxhA vkosnui= vkea=.k dh lwpuk ls 10 fnol ds Hkhrj vkosnui= izLrqr fd;s tk ldsx a sA vkosnu vkea=.k i= dh lwpuk es vkosnu vkeaf=r djus dk vafre fnukWd ,oa le; dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k tk;sxkA vkosnui= vkea=.k dh lwpuk dk izk:i ifjf'k"V&3 ds vuqlkj gksxkA (10) Appendix 1 appended with the policy dated 10.7.2017 is in the following form:
"ifjf'k"V & ,d izfr] ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh] ,dhd`r cky fodkl ifj;kstuk ifj;kstuk---------------------ftyk-------------------
:: 10 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) e/;izns'k ¼1½ vkaxuokMh dsUnz dk uke ----------------------------------------------------
ftlds fy;s vkosnu fn;k tk jgk gSA ¼2½ vkosfndk dk uke ----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------- ¼3½ vkosndk ds ifr@firk dk uke ----------------------------------------------------
¼4½ vkosfndk dh tUefrfFk oo oo oo
rkjh[k ekg o"kZ
1 tuojh dks vkosfndk dh vk;q oo oo oo
o"kZ ekg fnu
¼5½ vkosfndk dk irk ----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
¼6½ ernkrk lwph chih,y lwph
¼I ½ vkosfndk
¼II½ vkosfndk dk uke u gksus dh fLFkfr
esa firk ;k ifr ds uke dk ljy Øaekd
¼III½ fcUnq I ,oa II esa uke u gksus dh fLFkfr esa ,lMh,e ------------------------------------------------
@rglhynkj }kjk tkjh izek.k i= dk fooj.k -------------------------------------------------------
¼7½ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk %&
¼'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk gsrq vadlwph dh lR;izfr layXu dh tk;s½ (emphasis ours) ¼8½ vkosfndk dh tkfr %& vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@ ---------------------------------------------------- vU; fiNMk oxZ@lkekU;
¼9½ oSokfgr fLFkfr ¼Status½ %&
fookfgr @30 o"kZ ls vf/kd mez dh ----------------------------------------------------
vfookfgr@fo/kok@rykd'kqnk@ifjR;drk ----------------------------------------------------
¼10½ ;fn vkosfndk }kjk iwoZ esa vkxuckMh
lgkf;dk@f'k'kq f'k{kk dsUnz dh nhnh
:: 11 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) 'kgjh {ks= esa lapkfyr iks"k.k vkgkj dsUnz ij laxfBdk ds in ij dk;Z fd;k gS rks ,sls inij dk;Zjr vof/k ¼v½ vkaxuckMh dsUnz dk Øaekd ,oa uke@----------------------------------------
dk;ZLFky dk uke
¼c½ vkaxuokMh dsUnz ij dk;Z djus oo oo
dh vof/k o"kZ ekg
¼l½ iwoZ esa in NksMus dk dkj.k ----------------------------------------------------
izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd esjs }kjk nh xbZ mijksDr tkudkjh lR; gSA ;fn nh xbZ tkudkjh xyr ikbZ tkrh gS rks blds fy;s eS Lo;a ftEesnkj jgwWaxh rFkk blds fy;s esjs fo:) fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxhA LFkku %& fnukad ¼gLrk{kj vkosfndk½
---------------------------------------------------- uke--------------------------------------------- ifr@firk dk uke------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
(11) Evident it is from the application form at S.No.(7) that it is essential for the candidates to annex the true copy of mark-
sheet in proof of the educational qualification. That it being mandatory to have enclosed the credentials, namely, Class V and Class VIII and the appellant having not annexed the same along with her application, in our considered opinion, Collector, Morena was well within his jurisdiction in holding that the appellant was not eligible. The decision in Dolly :: 12 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) Chhanda Vs. Chairman, Jee and others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 relied upon by the appellant, thus is of no assistance to the appellant. On the contrary as held in Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and others, (2011) 12 SCC 85 wherein it is observed :
"29.We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would :: 13 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of respondent No.1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list."
(12) In view whereof when the impugned judgment is tested on the anvil of above analysis, the same cannot be faulted with as would warrant any indulgence.
:: 14 ::
Writ Appeal No.1278/2018 (Smt. Neelam Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) (13) Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. However, no costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
Pawar/-
ASHISH PAWAR
2018.10.24 12:35:01
+05'30'