Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1060 (MP)

Vrindavan Sharma v. State of M. P.

2013-09-04

Sujoy Paul

body2013
ORDER 1. The aforesaid writ petitions are similar in nature. Accordingly, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. The facts are taken from W.P.No.2456/13. This petition is filed against the order dated 15.2.2013 passed by the Collector/Mission Director, District Education Centre, Morena whereby the petitioner’s representation claiming parity with the order passed by the Principal Seat in the case of Anil Bhatt v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2012(2) M.P.L.J. 82 is rejected. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade -III in the year 2008. After the advertisement issued by respondent No.1, executive instruction dated 5.10.2009 was issued and certain conditions of the advertisement were changed. Against this, petition was filed before the Principal Seat in the case of Anil Bhatt. The petition of Anil Bhatt was allowed. On the basis of said judgment, a batch of petitions were allowed by this Court in W.P.No.1102/2010 (Manmohan Mathur and others v. State of M.P. and Others. It is contended that writ appeal filed by the respondents against the order in Manmohan Mathur is rejected by the Division Bench on 6.5.2013. 3. Ms. Akansha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Collector has erred in rejecting the representation of the petitioners claiming parity with Anil Bhatt (supra). She submits that the judgment of Anil Bhatt and Manmohan Mathur (supra) squarely covers the case of the petitioners. Criticizing the order impugned dated 15.2.2013, it is submitted that the singular reason for rejecting the claim is that as per the amendment in the Rule and because of the insertion of Rule 7A in M.P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract),Rules, 2005, only such candidates are eligible for appointment who have worked between 31.3.2000 to 29th August, 2000 for one year on regular basis. In other words, the condition mentioned was that the candidate must have completed one year of regular service between 31.3.2000 to 29th August, 2000. 4. By drawing the attention of this Court, it is contended that the said condition was canvassed before the Principal Seat in Anil Bhatt (supra) and the Principal Seat opined that Rule 7A was brought in the statute book by way of amendment. That amendment is not retrospective in nature and, therefore, it cannot govern the case in hand. 4. By drawing the attention of this Court, it is contended that the said condition was canvassed before the Principal Seat in Anil Bhatt (supra) and the Principal Seat opined that Rule 7A was brought in the statute book by way of amendment. That amendment is not retrospective in nature and, therefore, it cannot govern the case in hand. Para 11 of the judgment of Anil Bhatt makes it clear that the amendment by which Rule 7A was inserted was published in the Gazette on 4.1.2010. Thus, it was opined by the Principal Seat that the amendment will have prospective effect and it will not have any retrospective effect. 5. Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Collector. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the light of the judgment of Anil Bhatt and Manmohan Mathur (supra), it is clear that the rule of the game cannot be permitted to be changed after issuance of the advertisement. The existing conditions of Recruitment Rules and advertisement are to be followed for the purpose of filling up the vacancies. If rules are amended subsequent to the advertisement, it will have prospective effect from the date of such amendment. I find force in the contention of petitioners’ counsel that the Collector has mechanically applied amended rule 7A while rejecting the representation of the petitioners claiming parity with Anil Bhatt (supra). In the considered opinion of this Court, it was obligatory on the part of the Collector to examine whether the advertisement in the present case was issued before the amendment and insertion of Rule 7A and whether petitioners’ fulfill the requirement of unamended provision. The Collector should have considered this aspect in detail while deciding the representation. If petitioners are otherwise eligible and fulfill the requirement of rule prevailing before amendment and at the time of issuance of advertisements and before insertion of Rule 7A, the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of parity with Anil Bhatt (supra). 8. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order of Collectors in all the cases are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector to re-examine the representations of the petitioners and take a final decision on it after examining the aforesaid aspect. 8. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order of Collectors in all the cases are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector to re-examine the representations of the petitioners and take a final decision on it after examining the aforesaid aspect. The entire exercise be completed within 30 days from the date of production of copy of this order. A reasoned order be passed and communicated to the petitioners within the aforesaid time. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that it will be open for the Collector to examine the eligibility of the petitioners along with the applicability of amended Rule 7A in the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the law laid down in Anil Bhatt (supra). Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned order dated 15.2.2013 and other similar orders in these petitions are set aside. No cost.