Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned senior counsel contended that as per said executive instruction, the petitioners although did not have the certificate of CPCT from MAPIT till the last date of submission of candidature, similarly situated candidates were given a different treatment. He placed reliance on various documents filed alongwith the additional documents and contended that one Shri Shekhar Verma is appointed in Forest Department on 22.7.2017 whereas his CPCT score card shows that he acquired that qualification only on 1.4.2017 whereas, admittedly, the last date of submission of candidature for all the candidates was 26.11.2016. Similar appointment order of one Rakesh Kumar is relied upon alongwith his CPCT certificate which shows that he acquired the certificate on 15.1.2017 i.e. after the cut off date. Similarly, the order at page 63 is relied upon to submit that the candidates have acquired qualification of CPCT from the said institution after completion of the selection process which is clearly mentioned in the said order. Heavy reliance is placed by learned senior counsel on an order dated 2.7.2016 Annexure A/9 issued by GAD wherein certain candidates were permitted to assume charge on their appointment with the condition that they will pass CPCT Examination from said institution within two years. On the strength of these documents, it is urged that there are several other examples in which similar treatment was given to the other candidates. The petitioners were not given similar treatment which is evident from document dated 18.5.2017 issued by Directorate of Public Prosecution wherein one of the petitioners Ruchir Jain's name is mentioned and his result was withheld because of court case.

12. So far as the question of parity and example quoted by Shri Nagrath are concerned, Shri Amit Seth, learned Government Advocate placed heavy reliance on document dated 25.7.2018 written by GAD to the Joint Commissioner (Revenue) Jabalpur Division Jabalpur, wherein it is clarified that in the document dated 2.7.2016 (heavily relied upon by Shri Nagrath), the names of some persons have been mentioned who have been given permission to obtain CPCT certificate within stipulated time. It is clarified that these persons were candidates of 2014 advertisement and at that point of time, there was no condition of having CPCT certificate. Thus, the special treatment was given to those persons who were candidates of previous advertisement. It is strenuously contended that no parity can be claimed from those persons who are not similarly situated. GAD has not taken any policy decision to relax the eligibility condition and give permission to candidates to have the CPCT certificate within the stipulated time.

14. Lastly, Shri Amit Seth, learned G.A. contended that there were various other candidates who were not having CPCT certificate till last date of submission of candidature. They perhaps did not apply for these vacancies on the presumption that they do not have the CPCT certificate from MAPIT. Therefore, if few candidates who have approached this Court are given the benefit, it will not be in consonance with the principle of parity and equity. Reliance is placed on (2012) 9 SCC 545 [State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Anr.].

26. The circular makes it clear that the permission to obtain CPCT Score Card was extended in favour of those candidates who were selected on the basis of an advertisement of 2014 and at the relevant time, the executive instruction dated 26.2.2015 was not issued. No CPCT examination was conducted at that point of time. Thus, it is crystal clear that petitioners cannot claim parity with those six candidates of 2014 advertisement because the eligibility condition was different in the year 2014. The parity can be claimed with similarly situated persons. The equity, parity and equality are positive concepts which may help a litigant provided law is in his favour. In the instant case, it is noticed that certain departments have issued orders in favour of certain candidates who at the time of submission of candidature did not have requisite CPCT Score Card. This action of those departments is not in consonance with the statutory rules and the instruction dated 26.2.2015.