Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2017
1 W. P. No. 1701/ 2017
(Ravi Soni Vs. State of M.P. & Others)
16.03.2017
Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Dixit, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/ State.
Petitioner has filed this petition claiming a relief that respondents be directed to grant the similar benefit to the petitioner in making posting on the vacancy of Patwari with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was a candidate for Patwari (General Recruitment) Test Result, 2008; he had secured 136.82 marks. Thereafter, petitioner along with two other persons had filed W.P. No.3677/2010(S), which was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2011 in terms of the common order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2871/2010. Vide such order, this Court was pleased to dispose of the petition in following terms:
"1) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Collector of the District and submit a detailed representation along with all the relevant documents and copy of the order passed by this Court today. In the said representation, petitioner shall state that petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Patwari as the other candidates having a similar case has been accommodated by giving appointment.
2) If such a representation is submitted before the concerned Collector, then the same shall be considered by the Collector concerned by examining the documents individually.
3) The Collector is also directed to take a practical test of each of the candidate if he fulfills other requirements so as to satisfy that the petitioner is having adequate knowledge and is familiar in computer operations.
4) If the Collector is of the view that rights of any person, who has already been appointed is going to affect in any manner in considering the case of the petitioner, then concerned person whose name is 2 W. P. No. 1701/ 2017 (Ravi Soni Vs. State of M.P. & Others) mentioned in the representation shall also be given opportunity before passing a reasoned order.
5) Upon examining, if Collector is of the opinion that petitioner is having a genuine claim but his candidature was wrongly rejected for one reason or another, then Collector shall pass a fresh order without being influenced by the earlier order of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner.
6) Needful be done within three months from the date of receipt of the representation."
Accordingly, the petitioner was required to submit his detailed representation along with all the relevant documents and copy of the order passed by this Court and was required to state that petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Patwari as the other candidates having a similar case have been accommodated by giving appointment.
It is petitioner's case that he had submitted his representation (Annexure-P/3) on 24.05.2012 in terms of the order dated 08.04.2011 passed in W.P. No.3677/2010(S), in regard to which, there is no acknowledgment or receipt.
It is petitioner's case that the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, had issued order dated 07.08.2010, in which it was mentioned that only such candidates be sent for training who were not having proper D.C.A. certificate and who had filed "O" Level certification from DOEACC/ IETE or from a recognized university of U.G.C. up to 30.11.2009. Thereafter, certain persons were deputed on training, but petitioner's case was not considered for deputation to such training.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 16.10.2015 issued by the 3 W. P. No. 1701/ 2017 (Ravi Soni Vs. State of M.P. & Others) office of Collector, Land Records, District- Morena, in which, case of certain Patwaris who were removed from service without giving them adequate opportunity of hearing, was considered and in terms of the Court orders, they were reinstated. In view of such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has again submitted a representation (Annexure-P/8) dated 23.01.2017 addressed to the District Collector, District- Guna, seeking reconsideration in the matter of deputing the petitioner for Patwari training.
It is petitioner's contention that he had acquired required qualification in Computer Applications in the year 2013 from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, M.P. and on the basis of such qualification, petitioner prays that Collector, Guna, be directed to consider his case for appointment as Patwari. He also submits that there are several vacancies available in the cadre of Patwari in Guna district and therefore, there is no bar in considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as Patwari.
As far as petitioner's contentions are concerned, it is now a settled principle of law that the qualification as is mandatory for appointment is to be acquired on or before the last date of filing the application seeking recruitment to the said post. Admittedly, petitioner was not having such qualification on the last date of filing such application for appointment on the post of Patwari; Subsequent qualification will not give any cause of action to the petitioner to seek appointment on the post of Patwari.
As far as the orders of Commissioner, Land Records, are concerned, the first order dated 07.08.2010 is in 4 W. P. No. 1701/ 2017 (Ravi Soni Vs. State of M.P. & Others) regard to those candidates who had though filed qualification certificate, but in whose cases, signatures and seal of the issuing authority/ university could not be verified, were granted time to seek verification of such qualification/ certificate till 30.11.2009. Admittedly, petitioner's case is not covered by such order dated 07.08.2010 inasmuch as petitioner had not acquired necessary qualification in Computer Applications till 30.11.2009, therefore, there is no question of verification of seal/ signatures on the said certificate.
Similarly, petitioner's case is also not governed by the order dated 16.10.2015, which deals with the cases of those Patwaris who were appointed in service, but who were removed from service without affording them an opportunity of hearing and following the principles of natural justice.
In the present case, as has been noted above, since petitioner was not having the requisite mandatory qualification of certification/ Diploma in Computer Application from the institute as mentioned in the advertisement or as is mandate in the rules, petitioner is not entitled to any relief; thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge @PK