Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1321 (MP)

Gyanswaroop Patel v. State of M. P.

2006-11-22

DIPAK MISRA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2006
ORDER Misra, J. -- 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Revenue Inspector in Mandla by order dated 11.2.1997. He had worked on the said post in various districts in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. The Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement issued a notification on 27.12.1995 for filling up of the posts of Naib Tehsildar from Revenue Inspectors and Patwaris through open competition. The said Notification provided certain conditions, namely, a candidate must have five years service as on 1.1.1996; he ought to be a bachelor in any subject by a recognized University within the territory of India and if he belongs to general category, should not be more than 45 years and if he belongs to SC/ST/OBC, should not be more than 50 years and further five years' ACRs would be evaluated and considered for selection. 2. According to the writ petitioner, a written test was held on 28.7.1996. There were two papers in the examination, each containing 50 marks. He obtained 38 marks in the first paper and 36 marks in the second. It is contended that 50% posts were reserved for SC/ST/OBC. It was also stipulated that the candidates who secured 50% marks, would be deemed to have been passed. The Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement called for ACRs through Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Land Records. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, ACRs for the years 1991 to 1995 were sent to him. After going through the ACRs and the marks secured, the State Government declared the result on 5.8.1997. The petitioner could not be selected, as stated, due to wrong evaluation of ACRs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid non-selection, he approached the M.P. Administrative Tribunal under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 but the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 18.8.2000 passed in OA No. 4644/2000, Annexure P-10, dismissed the same on the ground that it was barred by limitation. It is put forth that the petitioner had submitted number of representations before approaching the Tribunal and his stand was that though he had obtained 74 marks out of 100, he was not selected; whereas the general candidates who had obtained 65 marks and OBC category candidates who had secured 60 marks had been selected. It was also urged that the ACRs were upto the mark and he had never been communicated any adverse ACRs. 3. It was also urged that the ACRs were upto the mark and he had never been communicated any adverse ACRs. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 contending, inter alia, that the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the original application on the ground of limitation, cannot be found fault with, inasmuch as, the Tribunal has placed reliance upon section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and come to hold that the petitioner had slept over the matter despite the factum that the cause of action had arisen in the year 1997. 4. We have heard Mr. Dilip Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Dubey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 5. At the very outset we think it seemly to state that ordinarily we would have set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remitted the matter, but M.P. Administrative Tribunal has been abolished and, therefore, we are required to address ourselves to the factual matrix and the merit involved in the case. 6. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in WP No. 11808/2003, Bhulani Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra) and the other connected matters on similar fact situation, had taken note of the marks awarded on evaluation of ACRs. Be it noted, A+ was awarded 20 marks, A 20 marks, B 15 marks and C 10 marks. This Court had adverted to the facts and opined that as per the settled norms fixed in the circular, the marks obtained in the written examination were to be added in the marks obtained by the candidate on evaluating the ACRs and, thereafter, the merit list was required to be prepared. This Court had reverted to the marks awarded in case of each candidate. Thereafter, in paragraphs 4 to 6, it has held as under : "4. On going through the averments made in the pleadings as well as the circular of the Government by which the applications were invited, it is gathered that there was a fixed criteria. Nowhere in the said circular, it has been mentioned that after assessing the grading of ACRs by the DPC, again another DPC would evaluate the grading. However, according to Mr. Nowhere in the said circular, it has been mentioned that after assessing the grading of ACRs by the DPC, again another DPC would evaluate the grading. However, according to Mr. Nema, learned Government Advocate, later on, after taking written examination, the criteria was little changed and the members of the DPC were delegated with the powers to re-evaluate the gradation of ACRs. 5. According to me, if a particular criteria and norms are fixed for selection in the notification, then, the selection and appointment should be made strictly to the terms of the said notification and not otherwise. It has been contended by Mr. Nema that DPC first met in Gwalior, in which the members of the DPC prepared the select list on the basis of ACRs, and did not touch grading made in those ACRs. However, later on, another DPC was constituted at Bhopal which changed the grading of the candidates who passed written examination as well as of petitioners. According to me, the criteria which was adopted by the second DPC was wholly unwarranted under the law. I am unable to understand that if the first DPC which met at Gwalior prepared a select list on the basis of the norms which were advertised in the notification without touching the gradation of ACRs, what was the occasion to change the grading of ACRs and the grading of petitioners were changed by the members of the second DPC. The action of the respondents gives rise to some suspicion as some foul smell appears to be coming out, because the gradation of annual ACRs were changed by the second DPC. Obviously, a prudent man can say that in order to adjust some persons, the second DPC was convened. There is nothing in the circular that after preparing the select list by DPC another DPC would be constituted. In this view of the matter, according to me, the action of constituting second DPC and thereafter on the basis of the recommendation of the second DPC, the select list which was prepared appears to be wrong. 6. In the case of Charan Lal Verma, specific averment is there in the petition that the entire service record is unblemished and no adverse ACR were ever communicated to him. The said pleadings has not been specifically denied in the return and no material has been placed contrary to the averment made in the petition. 6. In the case of Charan Lal Verma, specific averment is there in the petition that the entire service record is unblemished and no adverse ACR were ever communicated to him. The said pleadings has not been specifically denied in the return and no material has been placed contrary to the averment made in the petition. It has been informed by Shri Nema that the ACRs of Charan Lal Verma are not available. The contention of Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel is that the record of the petitioner was unblemished and no adverse ACR was communicated to him and there is nothing on record in order to show that the service record of the petitioner was not upto the mark." 7. In the case at hand, the return has been filed only supporting the order of the Tribunal. It had not adverted to the case of the petitioner on merits. It is apposite to state here that it is not a case where the delay was not condonable. Similar cases have already been decided in course of time. The Tribunal ought to have decided the matter on merits but unfortunately it did not do so. It is the assertion in the petition that the petitioner had obtained more marks than some candidates, yet he was not selected. There is assertion that his ACRs were good. There is no denial to that effect. True it is, the comparison has to be assessed as per the accepted guidelines. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are commanded to constitute a review DPC and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of the direction given in the case of Bhulani Prasad (supra), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.