Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 416 (MP)

Mahendra Kumar Rajoria v. Union of India

2004-04-29

DIPAK MISRA

body2004
ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. The petitioner is working in the post of Telecom Technical Assistant and appeared for the examination of Junior Telecom Officer Competitive Examination held for the year 1992 on 13/14-3-1993. The vacancies have been enumerated in paragraph 5.1 of the petition showing that there were forty vacancies for other class, 8 vacancies for scheduled caste and four vacancies for scheduled tribe. Thus, in to there were 52 vacancies. The petitioner secured 42% marks as evincible from Annexure-P-2. It is contended in the petition that qualifying marks for Junior Telecom Officer Competitive Examination was relaxed by the Office Memorandum No. 12-20/94-DE (PF-1) dated 5-6-1997. Heavy reliance has been placed on the said relaxation to pyramid the contention that the petitioner was entitled to the relief in question. It is pertinent to state here that some other candidates approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 402/2000 and the Tribunal has quashed the selection. The said order of quashment of the Tribunal was the subject-matter of attack in W. P. No. 4092/2002 wherein the Division Bench by order dated 28-4-2003 quashed the order of the Tribunal and direct the benefit to be extended to the respondent No. 2 therein. Pursuant to the order of this Court the respondents published the result of the Departmental Competitive Examination. It is urged that the petitioner as submitted a representation on 16-3-2003 but till the date of filing of the writ petition no action has been taken. It is contended that though he has successfully passed the examination meant for J.T.O. and obtained 42 aggregate marks in percentage, he has not secured 40% in every paper, he was not promoted and not sent for training. Under these circumstances the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court seeking direction to the respondents to send him for training. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner appeared in the examination on 25-9-1994 but not on the date mentioned in petition and the results were declared on 30-12-1995. It is further putforth that the petitioner is not covered by the memorandum of relaxation as the same has to be strictly construed. It is setforth that the conception of relaxation was not to be made applicable for the examination for the post of 1992 which was conducted in the year 1994. It is further putforth that the petitioner is not covered by the memorandum of relaxation as the same has to be strictly construed. It is setforth that the conception of relaxation was not to be made applicable for the examination for the post of 1992 which was conducted in the year 1994. It is also asserted that as per old rules a candidate is required to secure 42% of marks in aggregate and 40% in each paper and as the petitioner had not secured the same he was not selected and, therefore, the question of sending him for training does not arise. 3. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel and Mr. S. P. Singh for the respondents. The heart of the matter is whether Annexure-P-3 would come in aid of the petitioner. It is not disputed by Mr. Sanyal that the petitioner appeared in the examination for the post of 1992. It is also not disputed by him that the examination was held 24/25-9-1994 and the result was published on 30-12-1995. It is also not refuted by him that the petitioner was not qualified in the said examination inasmuch as he had not obtained 40% marks in each paper though he had qualified in aggregate. In view of the aforesaid admitted factual scenario Annexure-P-3 has to be seen whether said letter/circular or instruction relating to relaxation would assist him. That being the sole, singular and relevant question I am inclined to reproduce the backdrop of the introduction of the aforesaid relaxation. It reads as under :- I am directed to say that the proposal for application of relaxed standards in preparation of the result of the above quoted examination has been under consideration of the Department as the results declared by the Circles on the basis of the prescribed qualifying standards of 40% and 33% marks in each subject for 'OC' category candidates and SC/ST category candidates respectively contained in this office letter No. 25-23/89-DE dated 1st January, 1990 were found to be abysmally low. Consequently a large number of vacancies in the cadre of JTO could not be filled up in any category. This was primarily due to the fact that in mot of the Circles very few candidates obtained the minimum prescribed marks in each subject as contained in the letter referred to above. Consequently a large number of vacancies in the cadre of JTO could not be filled up in any category. This was primarily due to the fact that in mot of the Circles very few candidates obtained the minimum prescribed marks in each subject as contained in the letter referred to above. 2.Shortage of personnel in the Cadre of JTOs is being felt by Telecom circles for meeting their target and filling up of vacancies is the imperative need in the interest of the service." After so stating, as an expose of ushering the factum of relaxation, the Department has proceeded to relax it in paragraph 3 which reads as under :- 3. It has, therefore, now been decided that in addition to the result already declared as per the normal standards, a separate merit list year-wise for unfilled vacancies will be drawn by applying relaxation in the standards in order to make more qualified departmental candidates available for recruitment in the cadre of J.T.O. The relaxation of standards will be as follows : i) Condition of obtaining minimum marks for qualifying in each subject will be dispensed with, ii) Merit list will be prepared on the basis of aggregate of marks obtained in all four subjects by the candidate; iii) The required minimum aggregate marks in all four subjects will be 30% for 'OC candidates and 20% for SC/ST candidates. 4. It is contended by Mr. Rohit Arya and Mr. S. P. Singh that if the relaxation would be applicable the petitioner would be treated to be successful and be sent for training. However, it is relevant to state at this juncture that in paragraph 4 of the said circular it has been held as under :- 4. The relaxation will be applicable sincerely and exclusively in respect of the examination held on 10th and 11th February, 1996 and shall not be precedent for any future examination. 5. On a perusal of the notification and scanning of the same it is clear that on the date that notification has been made applicable for a restricted period. It is a notification which renders limited advantage to certain categories of persons. One may call it as letter circular/notification/executive instruction. Law is well settled that even if it is a Rule unless it is given retrospective effect by express language it is to be treated as prospective in nature. It is a notification which renders limited advantage to certain categories of persons. One may call it as letter circular/notification/executive instruction. Law is well settled that even if it is a Rule unless it is given retrospective effect by express language it is to be treated as prospective in nature. In the present case the conferral of benefit of retrospective effect or retroactive effect does not arise. Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel, has commended me to the heading of the circular/memo No. 12/20/94-DE (PF-1). One fails to understand how it helps the petitioner. What has been said in the memorandum is that relaxation in qualifying marks is applicable in respect of competitive examination for recruitment J.T.O. for 15% quota of vacancies in the year 1993 and 1994 held on 10th and 11th February, 1996. On an X-ray of the aforesaid, it is clear that it referred to 15% quota of the vacancies of the year 1993 and 1994 in respect of which examination was held on 10th and 11h February, 1996. In the case at hand the petitioner had appeared for the vacancy in the year 1992 and the examination was held in the September, 1994. Thus, neither of the conditions was satisfied. Mr. Sanyal's effort to read the same with retrospective effect is an exercise in futility. Paragraph 4 of the memorandum makes it crystal clear it is prospective and it is unambiguous that one time benefit is to be extended. Thus, the relaxation of Annexure-P-3 by the petitioner is misconceived. Once I have come to hold that the petitioner could not have got the benefit of relaxation it can safely be concluded that he had not qualified in the examination of J.T.O. Whether the petitioner could have appeared or there has been delay need not be gone into as the infrastructure of the case has collapsed and hence, the superstructure is bound to collapse. The circular, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed as retrospective. Thus, I am of the inclined to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the relaxation and he being disqualified the question for sending for training does not arise. The reliance on the aforesaid W.P. No. 4092/2002 is absolutely inconsequential inasmuch as that was not the lies in question in the said petition. Thus, I am of the inclined to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the relaxation and he being disqualified the question for sending for training does not arise. The reliance on the aforesaid W.P. No. 4092/2002 is absolutely inconsequential inasmuch as that was not the lies in question in the said petition. It is settled in law that a decision is a precedent for what it is stated not what can be drawn by way of inference. In this context I may refer with profit to the decision rendered in the case of Ambica Quarry Works etc. v. State of Gujarat and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1073 wherein the Apex Court held as under:- The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. 6-7. In view of the aforesaid the decision taken in W.P. No. 4092/02 is not a precedent on the point which Mr. Sanyal has pyramided. It is canvassed by Mr. Sanyal that in paragraph 8 of the return the Department has admitted that they have extended the benefit of relaxation to the candidates who appeared in the examination for 1994. The said paragraph reads as under :- 8. It is respectfully submits that the petitioner tried to misguide the Hon'ble Court by giving incorrect facts of the case. It is submitted that the relaxation in qualifying marks granted by the department for the candidates who were appeared in the examination held on 10 and 11th February, 1996 for the Recruitment year 1993-94 and not for candidates of 1992 year examination. It is submitted that similar relaxation in qualifying marks were given for recruitment year of 1996-98 examination. In the said examination some unsuccessful candidate file the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and challenged the selection proceedings for selection to the post of JTO's for vacancy of the year 1996 which was conducted in the year 1999. It is submitted that similar relaxation in qualifying marks were given for recruitment year of 1996-98 examination. In the said examination some unsuccessful candidate file the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and challenged the selection proceedings for selection to the post of JTO's for vacancy of the year 1996 which was conducted in the year 1999. In the said examination, there was a complaint about mass copying and they were not selected so they were approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the whole examination without considering the submission made by the department, therefore, against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Department of Telecommunication filed the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court and challenged the orders passed by the tribunal which was allowed by this Hon'ble Court partly. It is submitted that petitioner try to mislead to this Hon'ble Court by referring the decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court and relaxation given by the department to the candidates who are selected for pertaining recruitment year 1996/98. The answering respondent very humbly submitted that petitioner is not entitle similar relief which was given to the candidates who were appeared in the departmental examination for recruitment year 1993-94 and which was held on 10 and 11th February, 1996 and they were declared successful. It is submitted that petitioner was not appeared in the said examination therefore he is not entitle any relief from this Hon'ble Court. It is pertinent to mention here that since no relaxation were given for recruitment year 1992 though he secured 42% aggregate marks but as per the rules candidate has to secure 40% marks in each paper. It is submitted that petitioner fails to secure the 40% marks in each paper therefore he has not declared qualified or successful therefore, he had not sent for training by the Department. Thus, the answering respondent has not committed any illegality by not sending him for training to the post of JTO. 8. On a careful scrutiny and proper reading of the said paragraph I am inclined to think that the submission of Mr. Sanyal is only to be noted to be rejected. The pronouncement made by him on the basis of the aforesaid paragraph is without any substratum. Hence, the same is bound to be repelled and accordingly stands repelled. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sanyal is only to be noted to be rejected. The pronouncement made by him on the basis of the aforesaid paragraph is without any substratum. Hence, the same is bound to be repelled and accordingly stands repelled. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.