Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyam Sunder Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Vijay Kumar Shukla
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
W.P. No.9301/2020
Poonam Pandey
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.9324/2020
Sushil Kumar Patel
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10095/2020
Lokendra Sharma
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10977/2020
Rashmi and another
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.11014/2020
Smt. Somlata Kushwaha and another
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.12144/2020
Deepak Kumar Bisen and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
2
W.P. No.13384/2020
Pradeep Kumar Pandey
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.14306/2020
Jyoti Mandloi
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.15524/2020
Sanjeev Kumar Dubey
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.6676/2021
Smt. Anita
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.8180/2021
Amit Kumar Pathak and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.8463/2021
Neetu Sahu and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.8956/2021
Rajesh Singh Meena and others
3
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.9790/2021
Prachi Pandey and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.9935/2021
Yagyesdhwari Lilhare
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10107/2021
Shikha Kushwah
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10491/2021
Yuvraj Singh Thakur
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10695/2021
Sachin Kumar Sahu
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10941/2021
Purnima Pawar
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
4
W.P. No.10952/2021
Roopali Goswami and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10953/2021
Basant Kumar Rai
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.11362/2021
Bhogiram Khangar Thakur
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.11497/2021
Smt. Dileshwari Bhagat
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.12700/2021
Ambar Sharma and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.13011/2021
Keval Prasad and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.13641/2021
Shyam Sunder Patidar
5
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.13796/2021
Ranjana Rawat
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.14400/2021
Vijay Kumar Pahade
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.14480/2021
Gunjan Shivhare
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Appearance :
Shri Kapil Jain, Shri Rajesh Kumar Khare, Shri Rajesh Kumar
Chand, Shri Kashiram Patel, Ms. Ranno Rajak, Shri Manoj Kumar
Sharma, Shri Nitin Agrawal, Shri Devendra Singh, Shri Aniruddha
Prasad Pandey, Shri Brindavan Tiwari, Shri Devendra Singh and
Shri Prashant Shrivas, Advocates for the petitioners in their
respective writ petitions.
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Ms. Nirmala Nayak, Advocate fore the respondent/UGC.
Shri Rahul Diwakar with Shri Aman Gupta, Advocates for the
respondent No.3/Vyapam in WP-13796-2021.
Shri Siddharth Sharma, Advocate for the respondent/Vyapam in WP-
9324-2020 and WP-10095-2020
6
_______________________________________________________
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
Reserved for orders on : 26-8-2021
Order pronounced on : 14-9-2021
[Hearing convened through virtual/physical modes]
ORDER
(Jabalpur, dtd.14.9.2021) Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
Regard being had to the similitude of prayers and considering the commonality of issues exposited in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The issue involved in these writ petitions is that, whether two Degrees obtained simultaneously, during the same academic year, can be considered for employment purposes, particularly, for being selected to a post under the M.P. School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 ?
3. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts adumbrated in W.P. No.9301/2020 (Poonam Pandey vs. State of M.P. and others) are noted.
7
4. An advertisement was issued by the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh (Vyapam) in the month of September, 2018 for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test - 2018 for recruitment of teachers in High Schools in the State of Madhya Pradesh for various subjects. The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted the M.P. School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 [hereinafter referred to as "Rules 2018"]. The M.P. Professional Examination Board also issued a Booklet regarding Conduction of Examination and Selection under the School Education Department for High School Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018.
5. The petitioner filled-up the prescribed form in the subject of Biology after payment of requisite fees. In the application form the petitioner has clearly specified the year of both Degrees, i.e., M.Sc. (Zoology) from M.P. Bhoj (Open) University and B.Ed. from the Kurukshetra University, as 2010. The petitioner had completed the M.Sc. (Zoology) course from the M.P. Bhoj (Open) University under Open and Distance Learning during the period September-October 2008 to September-October 2010. The examinations of M.Sc. First Year were conducted in September- October 2009 and those of M.Sc. Second Year in September- October 2010. The petitioner took admission in Keshav College of 8 Education under the Kurukshetra University, as a regular student in June, 2009 for one year B.Ed. Course and appeared in the B.Ed. Examination during June, 2010. She appeared in the examination on 03-02-2019 at B.V.M. College of Management, Centre - 1, Yamuna Nagar, Gwalior. The result of the High School Eligibility Test, 2018 was declared on 29-8-2019. The petitioner secured 100.72 marks in the Examination with the consolidated position/rank of 115.
6. It is setforth that the advertisement was issued by the M.P. Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh under the Rules 2018 for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test - 2018 for recruitment of teachers in High Schools in the State of M.P. in various subjects. The educational qualification required was under
Schedule III of the Rules 2018. As per Scheduled III the requisite educational qualification for High School teacher is Master's Degree in the relevant subject with Second Division and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent. So the requisite educational qualification provides for two Degrees, one should be Master's Degree and the other B.Ed. or its equivalent.
7. The State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed the 9 Rules 2018, which provides the manner, method and process pertaining to service conditions and recruitment for the M.P. School Education Service Teacher cadre. It further provides for eligibility and disqualification of the candidates appearing and applying for various posts of High School teachers. It is asseverated that the disqualification which has been provided in the impugned communication, dated 22-6-2020, that a candidate who possesses two Degrees in one Academic Year, will be disqualified, was not provided in the parent Rules 2018, however after completion of whole selection process this disqualification is issued by the impugned order dated 22-6-2020, which per se, is illegal and arbitrary.
8. It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rules and Instructions Booklet published by the Professional Examination Board provides essential qualifications and disqualification of the candidates, but no such disqualification as described in the impugned communication dated 22-6-2020, is provided in the Booklet.
9. The Directorate of Public Instructions, Bhopal published the documents verification schedule in its Official website for Uchh Madhyamik Shikshak (High School Teacher) for all qualified 10 candidates on 23-6-2020. The documents verification was to commence from 01-7-2020 and continued till 17-7-2020 in various districts of Madhya Pradesh depending on number of students in each district. The final selection list was supposed to be published by last week of July, 2020. Counselling of the petitioner was scheduled on 9-7-2020, but it was postponed and was finally conducted on 12-4-2021, whereby candidature of the petitioner was put on hold.
10. It is contended that when the petitioner was to attend the counselling after successfully securing 115th position in the selection process, the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 23-6- 2020, wherein it is prescribed that the candidates who are having two Degrees simultaneously in one academic year, would not be eligible. The aforesaid order has been assailed on the ground that it runs counter to the Rules 2018, which does not provide any such disqualification. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner commended us to the Apex Court decision rendered in the case of State of Karnataka vs. H. Ganesh Kamath reported in AIR 1983 SC 550, wherein it held that it is well settled principle of interpretation of statutes, that the conferment of rule-making power by an Act, does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is 11 inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto. Thus, the bone contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 23-6- 2020 is contrary to the Rules 2018.
11. Rule 9 of the Rules 2018 governs disqualification and Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 provides that the provision of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 and all other disqualifications notified by the Government from time to time, shall be applicable to the candidates. Thus, it is contended that no such disqualification of two Degrees obtained simultaneously, during the same academic year, has been notified by the Government in its Official Gazette. It is argued that as per Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018, the word "notified" as per Law Lexicon Dictionary authored by P. Ramanatha Iyer, means "notified in an official gazette". It is further propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that taking resort to Section 23 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 would go to show that, if any order or publication is required to be notified, then it will be deemed to be notified only when it is published in the Official Gazette. It is assiduously urged that even though the word "notified" is appearing in Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018, but it does not provide to be published in the Official Gazette, because the same is provided in the M.P. General Clauses Act that an order which is required to be notified, has to be 12 mandatorily published in the Official Gazette. It is argued that Section 23 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 provides only for the Madhya Pradesh Acts or any Rules made thereunder, is also not available with the State Government, because the Rules 2018 has been formulated directly under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which is parent of all the Acts and Rules throughout the country.
12. To substantiate the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court Court rendered in the case of Rajendra Agricultural University vs. Ashok Kumar Prasad and others, (2010) 1 SCC 730, wherein Section 36 of Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, 1987 and Section 28 of Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 were interpreted, which is pari materia to Section 23 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957. In para 17 of the said judgment it is held that the provision contained in Section 36(4) of Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, requiring publication of statutes in the Official Gazette, has to be treated mandatory. It is strenuously urged that although in Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018 the words "to be published in Official Gazette" are not appearing but the word "notified" is clearly appearing, and with the aid of Section 23 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 comes into play and the impugned 13 communication dated 22-6-2020 was required to be mandatorily published in the Official Gazette.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further commended us to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, (1996) 6 SCC 634, wherein it is held that the object of publication in the Official Gazette is not merely to give information to public. Official Gazette as the very name indicates, is an official document. It is published under the authority of the Government. Publication of an Order or Rule in the Official Gazette is final. Reliance is further placed on the decision rendered in the case of Sambhanath Jha vs. Kedar Prasad Sinha, (1972) 1 SCC 573, which says that the requirement of publication in the Gazette is an imperative requirement and cannot be dispensed with.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of M.P. vs. Fazal Hussain Ranabali Bohra, AIR 1968 MP 138 (DB), wherein it is observed that the word "notified" appearing in Rule 2(3) of the Defence of India Rule would mean notified in the Official Gazette.
14
14. Thus, the first plank of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, since the impugned order dated 22- 6-2020 has not been notified as disqualification by the Government in terms of the Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018, therefore, the aforesaid Rule could not have been operated against the petitioner. It is further canvassed that there is no bar, if a person pursues two Degree Courses in one academic year, but the one Degree should be through Distance Learning Mode and another as regular. It is assiduously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she underwent the B.Ed. Course from the Kurukshetra University and M.Sc. (Zoology) from M.P. Bhoj (Open) University under Open and Distance Learning. Pursuing two Degrees, out of which one through Distance Learning never had been a bar and till date, students are pursuing two Courses simultaneously, but one through Distance Learning Programme. It is argued that the students are allowed to pursue two regular courses in one academic year, but this is not the case here, because the petitioner has pursued one regular course and the other through Distance Learning programme.
15. A reference is made to the University Grant Commission (UGC) meeting dated 29-10-2012, which took the decision that a student enrolled in a Degree programme under regular mode, may be allowed to pursue a maximum of one 15 additional Degree Programme simultaneously, under Open/Distance Learning mode from the same or a different University. But, they did not allow two Degree programmes under regular mode. Thereafter, the UGC issued a public notice dated 15-01-2016 to the effect that they do not endorse the idea of allowing the students to pursue two Degrees simultaneously. Thereafter, a Press statement was also issued by the Secretary, UGC, which was published in the Times of India newspaper on 30-6-2020, stating that a decision has been taken to allow the students to pursue two Degrees simultaneously, but for both Degrees the mode of delivery will be different. A student pursuing a regular degree can pursue a second degree only via Open Distance Learning (ODL) or Oneline mode.
16. On the basis of the aforesaid factual assertions, it is contended that the previous view of the UGC, vide Public Notice dated 15-01-2016, has also been relied upon by the State Government in their counter reply and the same has been superseded by 546th Meeting of the UGC convened on 14-5-2020. The UGC has also forwarded its decision to the Ministry of Human Resources Development. A further reference is made to the Public Notice, dated 15-01-2016 published by the UGC, wherein they did not endorse the idea, allowing the students to pursue two degrees simultaneously. But, in this public notice it was not clear, whether it 16 was for two regular Degrees or one regular Degree and one Open Distance. It is canvassed that the Distance Learning Courses do not require any mandatory attendance and it has altogether different mode of learning, which is provided in Clause 3 of the UGC Regulations 1985 for Distance Education and its examinations are also conducted as per Clause 4 of the said Regulations.
17. It is urged that in the obtaining factual matrix, it can be inferred that so far as the Public Notice dated 15-01-2016 is concerned, which is based on Bachelor Degree and Master Degree, Regulation 2003, is actually for two regular Degrees acquired simultaneously, and not for one Regular and another through Open Distance mode. It is contended that some of the candidates, who were selected in the year 2012-13 out of which some of them, who have pursued two Degrees simultaneously, had been considered for Samviliyan.
18. The respondents have filed reply and submitted that the recruitment process was conducted under the Rules 2018. Rule 8 of the Rules 2018 prescribes condition of eligibility for direct recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 provides educational qualification which is prescribed in Column 5 of Schedule III. As per Column 5 of Schedule III, educational qualification for the post 17 of Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak is Master Degree in the relevant subject with second division and B.Ed or its equivalent.
19. In the Recruitment Rules 2018 for educational qualifications the word "Degree" has been specifically mentioned. The Degree which is issued by the University can be said as valid degree when it fulfils the terms and conditions and guidelines issued by the UGC, which is a Regulatory Authority. Obtaining a valid degree for recruitment is inclusive in the educational qualification prescribed under Rules 2018. The UGC has issued a public notice on 15-01-2016 stating that they do not endorse an idea of allowing the students to pursue two Degrees simultaneously. Therefore, two Degrees obtained by the petitioner simultaneously, cannot be said as valid degree and the petitioner cannot be declared qualified for appointment on the post in question, on the basis of invalid degree. It is argued that by the impugned order dated 23-6-2020 the respondents have not prescribed any disqualification.
20. The respondents have commended us to a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in W.P. No.2807/2014 (R. Chitra and others vs. Member Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Teachers' Recruitment Board, 18 Chennai and others), wherein a similar issue has been considered and decided against the candidates.
21. It is assiduously urged that as per Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018 the disqualification notified by the Government from time to time, shall be applicable to the candidates. Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is not applicable in the present case, because the same is applicable to making rules and bye-laws, whereby any Act or Regulation empowers to make rules or bye-laws is expressed to be given, subject to the condition that the rules or bye-laws be made final after previous publications.
22. The Rules 2018 have been formulated under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which confers the power to the State Government to notify disqualifications. The word "notified" cannot be taken in a sense that the State Government is required to publish all other disqualifications in the Official Gazette. The word "notified" used in Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018 has not been defined under the Rules. Therefore, the dictionary meaning of the word should be ascertained for construing the true meaning of the word.
19
23. The learned counsel for the respondents has further relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Desha Singh, through L.Rs. By Ram Pyari Bai Wd/o Desha Singh and another vs. Madanlal son of Dalumal, reported in 1992 MPLJ 95, wherein it is held that when the meaning of the word "notified" is not defined under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, then in such circumstances, a resort should be made to the dictionary meaning of the word. As per Concise Oxford Dictionary the word "notify" means - inform or give notice to (a person), make known; announce or report (a thing).
24. The learned counsel for the respondents urged with vehemence that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court rendered in the case of R. Chitra and others (supra).
25. The University Grant Commission has filed a short return in the matter and stated that the aforesaid decision has been submitted for concurrence of the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, and once approval is granted, it would issue appropriate notification to that effect. Thus, there is no final decision by the UGC in the matter.
20
26. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and bestowed our anxious consideration on their respective arguments advanced.
27. In the present batch of writ petitions, propriety of the impugned order dated 23-6-2020 has been assailed mainly on following grounds :
(i) The impugned order has not been notified in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018, which requires disqualification to be notified by the Government from time to time, and the same shall be made applicable to the candidates.
Reliance has been placed in Clause 23 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 contending that the disqualification debarring the candidates, who have secured two Degrees simultaneously, in the same academic year, has to be notified in the Official Gazette.
(ii) The Rules 2018 does not provide any such disqualification of the candidate or his candidature on the ground that the candidate is possessing two degrees simultaneously, in one academic session.
(iii) The petitioners have not undertaken two regular Degree Courses and in fact, they have done one as regular Degree and the other 21 through Open Distance Learning Programme and this type of situation has been accepted by the UGC in its Press Release dated 22-5-2020.
(iv) The Rules 2018, till the latest instructions dated 10-01-2020 issued by the respondents, does not provide for any such disqualification, and at the fag end of selection process when counselling is about to commence issuance of the impugned order is illegal.
(v) The impugned order is contrary to the Rules 2018 and the same has been passed in violation of the Articles 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
(vi) Merely by executive instructions the respondents cannot bypass the Rules 2018 and if that being so, the impugned order is perverse. There is no disqualification of such kind attached with the Rule 9 of the Rules 2018 and when the Rules 2018 does not provide for such disqualification, the State Government does not have the authority to issue conditions for disqualification of the candidates.
28. Regard being had to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and having perused the records, it is luminescent that the recruitment process was conducted under the Rules 2018. The 22 Rule 8 of the Rules 2018 prescribes condition of eligibility for direct recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 contemplates educational qualification which is prescribed under Column 5 of Schedule III. As per Column 5 of Schedule III, educational qualification for the post of Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak is Master Degree in relevant subject with Second Division and B.Ed or its equivalent.
29. In the Recruitment Rules 2018, for educational qualification, the word "Degree" has been specifically mentioned. The Degree which is issued by the University can be said as a valid degree when it fulfils the terms, conditions and guidelines issued by the UGC, which is a Regulatory Authority. Obtaining a valid degree for recruitment is inclusive in the educational qualification as prescribed under the Rules 2018.
30. The UGC has issued a public notice on 15-01-2016 stating that they do not endorse the idea, allowing the students to pursue two Degrees simultaneously. Since, the UGC which is a Regulatory Authority, has not approved the idea, allowing the students to pursue two Degrees simultaneously, therefore, two Degrees obtained by the petitioners simultaneously, cannot be said to be valid and the petitioners cannot be declared qualified for appointment on the post in question, on the basis of invalid degrees. 23 It cannot be inferred that the respondents have prescribed a new disqualification by the impugned order dated 23-6-2020. In fact, the said order is clarificatory in nature and does not run contrary to the Rules 2018 or the Booklet of the Professional Examination Board.
31. The issue which has cropped up for consideration in the present case - Whether two Degrees (dual Degrees) obtained simultaneously, during the same academic year, can be considered for employment purpose, particularly for being selected to a post under the Rules 2018, has come up for consideration before the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of R. Chitra and others (supra), wherein the UGC has taken the stand that earlier it had allowed the students to pursue dual Degree courses. However, recently after consulting with the educational bodies and considering various representations from the general public as well as educational agencies, the earlier view of the UGC was reviewed by an expert committee. Now the UGC has taken a decision to allow the students to pursue dual Degree courses simultaneously, one through a regular stream as full-time course and the other through Distance Education mode or an Open University or Online in the same academic year. However, the second Degree should be of the same level or of the lower level of the full-time academic programme. The UGC also stated that the 24 aforesaid decision of the UGC has been submitted for concurrence of the Ministry of Education, Government of India, and once the approval is granted the UGC would issue appropriate notification to that effect.
32. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in R. Chitra and others (supra), considering the aforesaid stand of the UGC ruled thus :
"Unless the dual degrees obtained simultaneously, in the same academic year, is recognized, a candidate cannot seek for a direction to the appointing authority to select and appoint him/her to a particular post. Incidentally, the Division Bench has also held that unless a specific direction is issued by the UGC in the form of Statutory notification, mere recommendation of the UGC approving the proposal to permit the students to pursue two degrees simultaneously, in the same academic year, have only a recommendatory value. As stated earlier, unless and until, the UGC recognizes such degree courses, there is no obligation on the part of the University or the employers/recruiting agencies, to recognize such degree courses in the absence of any such rules in this regard."
33. As regards publication of notification in the Official Gazette, being an essential requirement for prescribing disqualification, it is to be noted that by the impugned order dated 23-6-2020, no new disqualification was prescribed, because 25 securing appointment on the basis of Degree is inclusive under the Rules 2018. Moreover, Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is not applicable in the present case, because the same is applicable for making of Rules and bye-laws, where any Act or Regulation empowers to make Rules or Bye-laws is expressed to be given to the condition of the Rules or bye-laws being made after previous publications. If any Rules or Regulations is made under any Act, then it has to be published in the Official Gazette and, therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not apply to the facts of the present case.
34. In the present case, no new rules or bye-laws have been framed which are required to be published in the Official Gazette. Rules 2018 have been made under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which confers power to the State Government to notify the disqualification. The word "notified" cannot be taken in a sense that the State Government is required to publish all other disqualifications in the Official Gazette. The word "notified" used in Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018, has not been defined under the Rules 2018 and, therefore, dictionary meaning of the word should be adopted for construing the true meaning of the word. In the case at hand, since the impugned order dated 23-6-2020 was issued subsequently and is official in nature and no new disqualification 26 was prescribed, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in absence of publication of notification in the Official Gazette of the impugned order dated 23-6-2020 has no legal sanctity, does not merit consideration and the same being sans substratum, deserves to be repelled.
35. In the case of Desha Singh through LRs (supra) where this Court has taken the view that the word "notified" is not defined under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in such circumstances, resort should be taken to the dictionary meaning of the word and as per Concise Oxford Dictionary, the word "notify" means - inform or give notice to (a person), make known; announce or report (a thing).
36. In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussions, we do not perceive any illegality in the impugned order dated 23-6-2020 warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petitions being sans merits, are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohammad Rafiq) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2021.09.15 11:38:36 +05'30'