Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogita Sonwane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 471
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Vishal Dhagat
1 W.A.No.1306/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
Writ Appeal No.1306/2019
Yogita Sonwane
vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.Rajeshwar Rao, learned Government Advocate for the State
of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries.
None for respondent No.6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Dhagat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on 14.02.2020
ORDER
Jabalpur, dated : 18.03.2020 Per : Sanjay Yadav, J.
This appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against order dated 17.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.13581/2017.
2. The petition at the instance of present appellant was directed against order dated 09.09.2016.
3. The controversy pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat, Ghunadi, Janpad Panchayat Balaghat. The applications were invited in pursuance to resolution passed by 2 W.A.No.1306/2019 Janpad Panchayat on 05.08.2010. The Appellant who was found most meritorious was appointed by order dated 24.01.2012. The appointment was challenged by respondent No.6 who claimed grant of 20 marks in lieu of Bachelor of Computer Application. The challenge found favour with the First Appellate Authority who by order dated 24.09.2012 allowed the appeal by adding 20 marks in lieu of degree in Bachelor of Computer Application. Consequential order was passed on 10.10.2013 extract below for ready reference:
**U;k;ky; dysDVj ckyk?kkV e-ç-
vihy Øekad 06 v-&12&13 rglhy ckyk?kkV 1- Jh mRreflag firk eksguyky fuoklh ekusxkaoA 2- dq- ;ksfxrk firk tSpan lksuokus fuoklh ekusxkaoA &%%vkns'k%%& ¼ikfjr vkt fnukWd 10@10@2013½ eku- mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj }kjk W.P. 1965@2013 ¼S½ rFkk Rev. W.P 240/2013 esa ikfjr vkns'k Øek'k% fnukWd 13@02@2013 rFkk fnukWd 08@04@2013 ds ikyu esa vkosnd mRre f'ko firk eksguyky f'ko fuoklh xzke iapk;r ekusxkao tuin iapk;r ckyk?kkV }kjk çLrqr vH;kosnu@vihy fnukWd 01@05@2013 ds lkFk layXu çek.k i=ksa rFkk eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r ckyk?kkV ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k mfHkys[kksa ,oa çek.ki=ksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k vfHkys[kksa ,oa çek.ki=ksa ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mRre f'ko }kjk ek[kuyky prqosZnh i=dkfjrk ,oa lapkj jk"Vªh; fo'ofo|ky; e-ç- Hkksiky ls dEI;wVj esa ch-lh-,- ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh xbZ gS] tks fd iapk;r ,oa xzkeh.k fodkl Hkksiky }kjk xzke jkstxkj lgk;d ds in gsrq i= Ø- 14116@,e-vkj- 2@fnukWd 10@11@2009 }kjk Øa- 2 ¼[k½ ¼,d½ esa mYysf[kr okafNr ;ksX;rk dEI;wVj esa fMIyksek ls mPp ;ksX;rk gSA ekU;rk çkIr fo'ofo|ky; ls okafNr ;ksX;rk dEI;wVj esa fMIyksek ¼Mh-lh-,-½ ls mPp ;ksX;rk dEI;wVj esa Lukrd ¼ch-3 W.A.No.1306/2019
lh-,-½ dks vekU; djuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA mRre flag dks d{kk ckjgoh esa 450 esa 302 vad çkIr gq, gSa vr% ckjgoh ds 67-11 vad çkIr gq, tcfd dq- ;ksfxrk lksuokus dks d{kk ckjgoh esa 450 esa 302 vad bl rjg 67-11 vad çkIr gq, gSaA mRreflag }kjk ek[kuyky prqosZnh jk"Vªh; i=dkfjrk ,oa lapkj fo'ofo|ky; e-ç-
Hkksiky }kjk mRrh.kZ ch-lh-,- ds 20 vad dks ekU; djus ij mlds dqy vad 87-11 gks tkrs gaSaA vr% vkosnd mRre f'ko }kjk çkIr ch-lh-,- ds 20 vad dks ekU; djrs gq, mlds }kjk esfjV lwph esa çFke LFkku çkIr djus ds dkj.k mRre f'ko dks xzke iapk;r ekusxkao ds xzke jkstxkj lgk;d ds in ij fu;qfDr nsus gsrq vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA ¼ch- pUnz'ks[kj½] dysDVj ckyk?kkV e-ç-**
4. In second appeal the order was upheld by order dated 09.09.2016. It was held:
**6- v/khuLFk U;k;ky; çdj.k ds ifj'khyu mijkar esjs }kjk çdj.k dk lezx voyksdu fd;k x;kA bl izdkj izdj.k esa miyC/k nLrkostksa ls Li"V gS fd vukosnd Øekad&1 mRre f'ko }kjk ek[kuyky prqosZnh i=dkfjrk ,oa lapkj jk"Vªh; fo'ofo|ky; e0ç0 Hkksiky ls dEI;wVj esa ch0lh0,0ijh{kk mRrhZ.k dh xbZ gS] tks fd iapk;r ,oa xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx Hkksiky }kjk xzke jkstxkj lgk;d ds in gsrq i= Øekad 14116@,e0vkj0&2 fnukad 10-10-2009 }kjk Øekad&2 ¼[k½¼,d½ esa mYysf[kr okafNr ;ksX;rk dEI;wVj esa Lukrd ¼ch0lh0,0½ dks vekU; djuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA mRre f'ko dks d{kk ckjgoha esa 450 esa 302 vad çkIr gq;s gSA vr% ckjgoha ds 67-11 çfr'kr vad çkIr gq;s gSA vkukosnd Øekad&1 }kjk ek[kuyky prqosZnh jk"Vhª; i=dkfjrk ,oa lapkj fo'ofo|ky; e0ç0 Hkksiky }kjk mRrhZ.k ch0lh0,0 ds 20 vad dks ekU; djus ij mlds dqy vad 87-11 gks tkrs gSA vr% vukosnd Øekad&1 }kjk çkIr ch0lh0,0 ds 20 vad dks ekU; djrs gq;s mlds }kjk esfjV lwph esa çFke LFkku çkIr djus ds dkj.k vukosnd Øekad&1 mRre f'ko dks xzke iapk;r ekusxkao ds xzke jkstxkj lgk;d ds in ij fu;qfDr nsus gsrq vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkosfndk }kjk çLrqr ;kfpdk fujLr djus ;ksX; gSA** 4 W.A.No.1306/2019
5. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred Writ Petition No.13581/2017; wherein, also the order passed by the Authorities were affirmed by the impugned order. Learned Single Judge held:
"The learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the degree of computer science is higher qualification than that of diploma and accordingly he has rightly been granted 20 marks and there was no illegality in the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner.
Admittedly, there was no dispute in respect of qualification of respondent No.6 and as it is also not in dispute that he had a degree in computer science. So far as the requisite qualification under the guidelines of Council is concerned, it was not a mandatory qualification that a candidate must have the diploma in computer science. But, knowledge in computer or diploma in computer is a requisite qualification for which additional marks have been provided. Although in the guidelines, it is shown that as per the Scheme dated 12.06.2009 issued by the General Administration Department a certificate of computer exam was required, but it does not mean the candidate having diploma in computer, then only he would be granted the additional mark.
Undoubtedly, the degree in computer is higher qualification than diploma in computer and the basic object for having an additional qualification and allotment of marks was that the candidate having knowledge of computer should be given preference with some extra marks. A computer certificate is not a degree comprising with other subject but degree in computer means the only subject i.e. computer for which the degree has been granted. In such a circumstance, when respondent No.6 was found equipped with the knowledge of computer and having degree in the said 5 W.A.No.1306/2019 subject, there was no illegality committed by the Authority granting him additional marks and placing him at serial No.1 as he was meritorious. Accordingly, in my opinion, respondent No.6 was rightly given appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and the orders of the Collector and Commissioner do not suffer from any illegality.
The Division Bench of this Court in case of Rakesh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and ors. reported in ILR (2011) MP 1847 has dealt with the same situation and observed that if a candidate having a degree in computer which exclusively related to the subject 'Computer' but not a graduate degree like Commerce, Arts or Science where Computer Science is one of the subjects would be treated to higher qualified in computer. Accordingly, it is clear that the candidate having sufficient knowledge in computer technology, fulfills the requisite qualification as prescribed under the guidelines of selection of Gram Rojgar Sahayak.
Thus, in my opinion, there is no substance in this petition and as such the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner, do not require any interference by this Court."
6. The order is under challenge on the ground that the learned Single Judge glossed over the settled principle of law that whenever Rules of recruitment provides for certain qualification and criteria for appointment on a specific post, the competent Authority is bound to follow the Rules. It is urged that the criteria for appointment having been laid down as per the policy, it was beyond the competence of the Collector to have taken into consideration the qualification higher than the prescribed and award 20 marks in lieu 6 W.A.No.1306/2019 thereof. It is urged that similar error has been committed by learned Single Judge by affirming the order passed by the Collector and Commissioner. To substantiate the contention, learned counsel for the appellant has led us through the stipulations contained in the scheme of appointment of Gram Rajgar Sahayak, more particularly, the eligibility laid down in Paragraph 4 of the said policy. Paragaraph 4 lays down the qualification for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, whereas, Clause 4 ( v) stipulates essential qualification, Clause 4(c) provides for desired qualification. Clause 8 lays down procedure for selection. In paragraph 8.8 the parameters have been laid down. It is further urged that the desired qualification prescribed is passing Computer Examination viz. Diploma from all Universities recognized by UGC; Diploma from all Open Universities recognized by UGC; Diploma level examination from DOEACC with stipulation that diploma given by local institution affiliated from DOEACC is not accepted; Modern Office Management Course from Govt. Polytechnic College or 6 months vocational course training from Industrial Training Institute in accountancy, Computer Application, Data Entry Operator, Architect, Assistant. It is urged that the respondent was not possessing these qualifications, instead, he was Bachelor in Computer Application, therefore, he was not entitled for the weightage marks given by the 7 W.A.No.1306/2019 Collector in lieu of being graduate in Computer Application. On these contentions, learned counsel for the appellant seeks indulgence.
7. However, no one has appeared to contradict the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Be that as it may. The Policy in vogue for appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak is issued by the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad, a body registered under the Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Paragraph 4 stipulates the eligibility criteria. Paragraph 8 lays down procedure for appointment. In sub-paragraph 8 of paragraph 8 parameters are laid down, whereby, weightage of marks is awarded in respect of 'Essential' and 'Desired' qualification. The same are reproduced for ready reference:
**4- vgZrk,a& ¼v½ vfuok;Z vgZrk,a& 1- e-ç- ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My dh gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk ¼10 +2½ mRrh.kZ ;k dsUnzh; ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My dh gk;j lsdsUMjh ijh{kk ¼10+2½ ;k e-ç- 'kklu@dsUnz 'kklu ls ekU;rk çkIr cksMZ tSls&laLd``r cksMZ] vksiu cksMZ ls gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk ¼10 +2½ mRrh.kZ ;k led{k 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rkA 2- fu;qDr fd;s tkus okys dSys.Mj o"kZ ds ,d tuojh dks U;uwre vk;q 18 o"kZ ,oa vf/kdre vk;q 35 o"kZ gksuh pkfg,A 3- vH;FkhZ dk vkosfnr xzke iapk;r dk LFkkuh; fuoklh gksuk pkfg,A LFkkuh; fuoklh gsrq vkosnd dk uke ml xzke iapk;r dh Hkkjr fuokZpu dh ernkrk lwph esa iathc) gksuk vfuok;Z ,oa i;kZIr gSA fdlh xzke iapk;r esa 03 ls de LFkkuh; fuoklh vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu fn;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr xzke iapk;r 8 W.A.No.1306/2019 dh lhek ls yxs xzke iapk;rksa ds LFkkuh; fuoklh ds vkosnuksa dks Hkh fopkj {ks= esa fy;k tkosxkA ¼c½ okafNr ;ksX;rk,a& 1½ lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx ds Kki Ø-lh@3&11@08@2@,d] Hkksiky fnukad 12-6-2009 esa mYysf[kr fuEu laLFkkvksa esa ls fdlh ,d laLFkk ls dEI;wVj ijh{kk mRrh.kZ
i) Diploma from all Universities recognized by UGC.
ii) Diploma from all open Universities recognized by UGC.
iii) Diploma level examination from DOEACC, ¼LFkkuh; :i ls DOECC is Affiliated/Accredited laLFkkvksa ds fMIyksek ekU; ughaA½
iv) Modern office Management Course from Govt.
Polytechnic College.
2½ vkS/kkSfxd çf'k{k.k laLFkk ¼ITI½ }kjk jkstxkjksUeq[kh O;kolkf;d çf'k{k.k ;kstuk vUrxZr ,dkmUVsUlh] dEI;wVj ,Iyhds'ku] MkVk ,UVªh vkWijsVj] vkfdZVsDV] vflLVsaV esa 06 ekg dk;Z esa çf'k{k.k çkIrA 3½ jk"Vªh; xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkjaVh ;kstuk ds vUrxZr lafonk ij ij U;wure 01 foRrh; o"kZ dk dk;Z vuqHko vFkok lhvkbZMhlh ls esV çf'k{k.k çkIr vH;FkhZA 4½ vkS/kksfxd çf'k{k.k laLFkk ¼ITI½ }kjk xzkeh.k bathfu;j ;kstuk esa 110 dk;Z fnol dk eslu@IyEcj O;olk; esa çf'kf{kr ;k vkS/kksfxd çf'k{k.k laLFkk ¼ITI½ ls Mªk¶Vlesau losZ;j dk nks o"khZ; çf'k{k.kA 5½ fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx ls ekU;rk çkIr laLFkkvksa ls ch- dke- ijh{kk mRrh.kZA
---
---
8- mijksDrkuqlkj xzke iapk;rokj çkIr vkosnu i=ksa dks dk;ZØe vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r }kjk ijh{k.k fd;k tkdj çR;sd ik= vkosnd dks fuEu ekin.Mksa ds vk/kkj ij vad çnku fd;s tkosaxs& v- tc de ls de rhu ik= vkosnd LFkkuh; iapk;r ds gks %& l-Ø- Ekin.M vf/kdre vad 9 W.A.No.1306/2019 1 e-ç- ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My dh gk;j lsd.Mjh ijh{kk ¼10+2½ 100 esa ;k dsUnzh; ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My dh gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk ¼10+2½ esa ;k e-ç- 'kklu@dsUnz 'kklu ls ekU;rk çkIr cksMZ esa çkIr çkIrkadksa ds çfr'kr ds cjkcj vadA 2 LkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx ds Kki Ø-lh@3&11@08@2 ,d] Hkksiky 50 fnukad 12-6-2009 esa mYysf[kr fuEu laLFkkvksa esa ls fdlh ,d laLFkk ls dEI;wVj ijh{kk mRrh.kZA
i) Diploma from all Universities recognized by UGC.
ii) Diploma from all open Universities recognized by UGC.
iii) Diploma level examination from DOEACC, ¼LFkkuh; :i ls DOECC is Affiliated/Accredited laLFkkvksa ds fMIyksek ekU; ughaA½
iv) Modern office Management Course from Govt. Polytechnic College. ] ;k vkS/kkSfxd çf'k{k.k laLFkk ¼ITI½ }kjk jkstxkjksUeq[kh O;kolkf;d çf'k{k.k ;kstuk vUrxZr ,dkmUVsUlh] dEI;wVj ,Iyhds'ku] MkVk ,UVªh vkWijsVj] vkfdZVsDV] vflLVsaV esa 06 ekg dk;Z esa çf'k{k.k çkIrA 3 jk"Vªh; xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkjaVh ;kstuk ds vUrxZr lafonk ij ij 10 U;wure 01 foRrh; o"kZ dk dk;Z vuqHko vFkok lhvkbZMhlh ls esV çf'k{k.k çkIr vH;FkhZA 4 vkS/kksfxd çf'k{k.k laLFkk ¼ITI½ }kjk xzkeh.k bathfu;j ;kstuk esa 10 110 dk;Z fnol dk eslu@IyEcj O;olk; esa çf'kf{kr ;k vkS/kksfxd çf'k{k.k laLFkk ¼ITI½ ls Mªk¶Vlesau losZ;j dk nks o"khZ; çf'k{k.kA 5 fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx ls ekU;rk çkIr laLFkkvksa ls ch- 30 dke- ijh{kk mRrh.kZA dqy ;ksx 200 c- tc rhu ik= vkosnd LFkkuh; iapk;r ds fuoklh u gksa%& l- Ekin.M vf/kdre Ø- vad 1 e-ç- ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My dh gk;j lsd.Mjh ijh{kk ¼10+2½ 100 esa ;k dsUnzh; ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My dh gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk ¼10+2½ esa ;k e-ç- 'kklu@dsUnz 'kklu ls ekU;rk çkIr cksMZ esa çkIr çkIrkadksa ds çfr'kr ds cjkcj vadA 2 LkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx ds Kki Ø-lh@3&11@08@2 ,d] 50 Hkksiky fnukad 12-6-2009 esa mYysf[kr fuEu laLFkkvksa esa ls fdlh ,d laLFkk ls dEI;wVj ijh{kk mRrh.kZA 10 W.A.No.1306/2019
i) Diploma from all Universities recognized by UGC.
ii) Diploma from all open Universities recognized by UGC.
iii) Diploma level examination from DOEACC, ¼LFkkuh; :i ls DOECC is Affilited/Accredited laLFkkvksa ds fMIyksek ekU; ughaA½
iv) Modern office Management Course from Govt. Polytechnic College.
;k vkS/kkSfxd çf'k{k.k laLFkk ¼ITI½ }kjk jkstxkjksUeq[kh O;kolkf;d çf'k{k.k ;kstuk vUrxZr ,dkmUVsUlh] dEI;wVj ,Iyhds'ku] MkVk ,UVªh vkWijsVj] vkfdZVsDV] vflLVsaV esa 06 ekg dk;Z esa çf'k{k.k çkIrA 3 jk"Vªh; xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkjaVh ;kstuk ds vUrxZr lafonk ij 10 ij U;wure 01 foRrh; o"kZ dk dk;Z vuqHko vFkok lhvkbZMhlh ls esV çf'k{k.k çkIr vH;FkhZA 4 vkS/kksfxd çf'k{k.k laLFkk ¼ITI½ }kjk xzkeh.k bathfu;j ;kstuk 10 esa 110 dk;Z fnol dk eslu@IyEcj O;olk; esa çf'kf{kr ;k vkS/kksfxd çf'k{k.k laLFkk ¼ITI½ ls Mªk¶Vlesau losZ;j dk nks o"khZ; çf'k{k.kA 5 fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx ls ekU;rk çkIr laLFkkvksa ls ch- 30 dke- ijh{kk mRrh.kZA 6 Xkzke iapk;r dk LFkkuh; fuoklh 25 dqy ;ksx 225
8. Evident it is from the stipulation contained in the policy that Bachelor in Computer Application is not one of the desired qualification which evidently is higher qualification than Diploma in Computer Application.
9. Since respondent No.6 was not having the desired qualification, Collector fell into error in awarding marks thereagainst. Even learned Single Judge glossed over the aspect by erroneously observing that under the guidelines of Council the requisite qualification is not mandatory qualification and that degree 11 W.A.No.1306/2019 in Computer is higher than that of Diploma in Computer Application, therefore, preference was rightly given to the respondent.We respectfully disagree with the observation made by learned Single Judge.
10. Trite it is that unless provided for in the scheme of appointment, it is beyond the competence of the Executing Authority to add or substract any of the qualification to be 'Essential' or 'Desired' qualification.
11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Appeal: 1979/2019, decided on 30.01.2020) had an occasion to examine the similar issue as has cropped up in this matter. It is held therein:
"2. The matter related to appointment of Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat, Bichhiya, Janpad Panchayat, Shahpura district Dindori. The dispute travelled to Commissioner, Shahdol, Division, Shahdol who on findings: (i) As per the Scheme of appointment of Panchayat Karmi, the minimum essential qualification is 10th or High School Certificate Pass. Thus, the comparative merit of the candidates needs to be drawn on the basis of marks obtained by them in the said examination. If any candidate is possessing higher qualification, it is insignificant; (ii) In the advertisement, the additional marks given for higher education and Computer Diploma is not supported by any circular of the State Government. Thus, any such bonus marks given on the basis of higher qualification is not acceptable; and (iii) The High Court in 2007 (1) MPHT 291 (Dhyanendra Singh v. State of M.P. and others) 12 W.A.No.1306/2019 opined that the minimum qualification is the benchmark and such minimum qualification is High School; remitted the matter to the Authority concerned with the direction to draw a fresh select list on the basis of merit list on the basis of minimum qualification prescribed vide circular No. PC/ia-4/25- 82 dated 3.8.2007, learned Single Judge declined interference observing that it was beyond the competence of the Gram Panchayat to have added the qualification of Computer Diploma or Higher Education and award bonus marks, which was de hors the policy of the State and rightly held that if minimum essential qualification is prescribed, the comparative merits of the candidates must be determined on the basis of said qualification irrespective of any candidate possessing higher qualification."
12. Furthermore, in P.M. Latha and another vs. State of Kerela :
(2003) 3 SCC 541; wherein it is held:
"10- We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that B.Ed.
qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of appellants, it is pointed out before us that Trained Teachers Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed. degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. B.Ed. degree holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State 13 W.A.No.1306/2019 prescribing qualification for post of primary teachers as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible."
13. In view whereof, we do not agree with the view taken by the Authorities and upheld by learned Single Judge that having higher qualification than the prescribed will give an edge over others having requisite qualification.
14. The decision in W.P.No.1925/2010(s) (Rakesh Yadav vs. State of M.P.& ors) decided on 14.02.2011 is misread by learned Single Judge. In said case the matter related to appointment of Patwaris wherefor the relevant Rule which lay the qualification was Rule 1.8 which stipulated:
"1.8 Educational qualifications -Passing of Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) is necessary. In addition, '0' Level Certification from DOEACC/IETE or one year Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) from an institute run bv a reaistered/ recognized/affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC or higher education in computer."
15. The Division Bench observed :
"7. There is no difficulty in understanding the educational qualification that candidate must have passed Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) examination and also must possess '0' Level 14 W.A.No.1306/2019 Certification from DOEACC/IETE or one year Diploma in computer application from an institution run by a registered/recognized/affitiated with the University recognized by the UGC. The difficulty arises in the alternative for '0' level certification or diploma in computer application provided by the words "or higher education in Computer".
16. The petitioners therein were either Art or Commerce Graduates having studied Computer as one of the subject, were therefore found not eligible.
17. In the case at hand, the relevant Rule does not mention "higher education in Computer". Therefore, the respondent No.6 was not entitled for weightage marks in lieu of Bachelor Degree in Computer Application.
18. The impugned order when tested on the anvil of above analysis cannot be upheld. Consequently, the order passed by Commissioner, Jabalpur Division dated 09.09.2016 is quashed and order dated 17.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.13581/2017 is set-aside. The appointment order of the Appellant as Gram Rojgar Sahayak is restored.
19. The Appeal is allowed to the extent above. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vishal Dhagat)
Judge Judge
anand
ANAND KRISHNA SEN
2020.03.19 12:05:02
+05'30'