Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 560 (MP)

Dheer Singh Rawat v. State of M. P.

2016-07-14

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2016
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2014 passed by Additional Collector, District Morena, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was allowed and the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak, has been set aside. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.5 was not fulfilling the qualification of Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) on the last date of filing of the application by the Janpad Panchayat i.e. 4.7.2012, therefore, learned Additional Collector has erred in adding 50 marks in account of respondent No.5 on account of said qualification and granting appointment to the respondent No.5 in preference to the present petitioner. 3. On the other hand, respondent No.5 has submitted that petitioner was not a resident of the said Gram Panchayat and was therefore, not entitled for appointment as Gram Rozgar Sahayak. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has also relied on the mark-sheet filed by him as Annexure-R-5/5, showing that respondent No.5 had attained the BCA qualification in June, 2012. 4. Perusal of the said mark-sheet as has been produced by the respondent No.5 demonstrates that it is a mark-sheet pertaining to the 6th Semester examination, but cumulatively said respondent No.5 has been shown to have obtained zero marks in the 5th Semester. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a certificate from said Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, obtained by him in Right To Information Act as Annexure P-12, in which the Controller of Examination of the said university has certified that result of examination conducted for BCA, 6th Semester in June, 2012, was declared on 17.7.2012, thus, by placing reliance on said certificate, learned counsel for the petitioner ascertained that on the last date of submission of the application for recruitment as Gram Rozgar Sahayak, i.e. 4.7.2012, respondent No.5 was not having qualification of BCA and therefore, 50 marks have been wrongly added to his account and the Additional Collector has overlooked this fact while passing the impugned order. 6. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has relied on the decision of Supreme Court as reported in AIR 2016 SCW 1098 [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another], wherein it has been held that a candidate appearing in examination under OBC category submitting Caste Certificate after cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement, cannot be held ineligible for selection to the post. The Supreme Court has dealt with the issue and has mentioned that the purpose of providing reservation to certain category of persons is to seek social and economic justice, which is a right enshrined for protection of society. It is mentioned that since social and economic justice is envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution, in particular Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46, to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful, thus, it has been held that a person belong to a particular category by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. 7. In view of the said finding, the Honourable Supreme Court held that submission of Caste Certificate after cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement, will not render a candidate ineligible for selection on the post. 8. In the present case, the certificate which is relied on, is not by virtue of any right accrued in favour of respondent No.5 by birth, but, is a case of the event happening at a later stage. 9. It is now settled that a qualification is conferred on a person after declaration of result of the said examination. In view of this settled position, as is apparent from Annexure P-12, since results of BCA were issued on 17.7.2012, after the cut-off date for accepting the applications, learned Additional Collector erred in allowing the respondent No.5 to take advantage of a qualification, which was not available on the last date of filing of the application, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, respondent No.5 could not have been awarded 50 marks for a qualification, which he obtained after the cut-off date. 10. 10. As far as contention of respondent No.5 regarding the petitioner being not a resident of concerned village and his name not finding place in the Voter's list is concerned, that issue is not open at the moment, inasmuch as the order of Additional Collector, Morena, has been assailed and respondent No.5 had obtained said order only on the ground that he was not placed in the merit list due to non-consideration of the BCA qualification obtained by him, therefore, that issue is not open to respondent No.5 to agitate in this writ petition. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the order of Additional Collector, District Morena, is set aside. It is directed that Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sabalgarh, shall issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner, as this Court has held that respondent No.5- Girraj Sharma, has been wrongly allowed to count 50 marks for qualification of BCA to his score. 12. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is allowed. Vivek Jain for petitioner; Smt. Sangeeta Pachouri, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4; D. K. Katare for respondent No.5.