Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 948 (MP)

Shyam Sundar Sharma v. State of M. P.

2017-08-31

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Compounder (Ayurved) and placement of respondent 5 in the wait list for the aforesaid post, for which advertisement was issued by the VYAPAM as is contained in (Annexure P-1). As per the advertisement, last date to fill in the on-line application was 24.7.2013 and correction in such on-line application could have been made between 25.7.2013 and 3.8.2013. Examination was to be conducted on 1.9.2013. As per the requirements of the advertisement to fill up the posts of Compounder (Ayurved), a candidate was required to have obtained 12th Class pass certificate from Board of Secondary Education M.P. or from any equivalent Board. Besides this, he was required to obtain one year Compounder (Ayurved) course certificate and third requirement was that such candidate should have registration with the M.P. Paramedical Council. In this very advertisement, a note is provided below rule 1.4 which mentions that minimum qualifications should be obtained upto last date of filling up of the forms. If any of the qualifications are acquired after the cut off date, then such candidate shall not be entitled to be considered for the advertised posts. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as respondent No.4 is concerned, Directorate Ayush M.P. Bhopal in its Paramedical Staff Selection Check List has categorically mentioned that respondent No.4 was not having necessary registration till the last date of filling up of the examination form i.e. 24.7.2013. There was cutting in the mark sheet of 10th Class which is not counter signed. It is also mentioned that he had not produced police verification form. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the registration certificate issued in favour of Narendra Singh son of Sajan Singh giving him Registration No.12781 dated 22nd August, 2013 i.e. after the cut off date. In fact, there is note to this effect on his certificate as has been filed by the petitioner after obtaining the same under the RTI Act. In fact, there is note to this effect on his certificate as has been filed by the petitioner after obtaining the same under the RTI Act. Similarly, petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the certificate for persons with disabilities issued in relation to respondent No.5 to show that it was issued by District Medical Board, Balaghat, on 1.6.2005 showing him to have 30% disability in the shape of visual impairment and this certificate was valid for a period of three years. Respondent No.5 had procured another certificate from the Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College, Jabalpur, dated 5.5.2006 wherein again his disability has been shown as 30% and in the bottom it is mentioned that this certificate is valid only for a period of three years. Therefore, by placing reliance on such documents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even respondent No.5 had not filed his valid handicapped certificate so to enable him to be given appointment, as both the certificates on the date of filling up of the application have lost their validity. In continuation, it is further submitted that as per the definition of person with disability as given in section 2(t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955, 'person with disability' means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority. In the present case, it is seen that respondent No.4 was not eligible by virtue of not possessing all the necessary qualifications as on the cut off date. Similarly, respondent No.5 was also not suffering from 40% and above disability on the date of application and was in fact not having a valid certificate on the date of application, therefore, he should not have been placed in the wait list at all and his candidature should have been rejected. 4. Similarly, respondent No.5 was also not suffering from 40% and above disability on the date of application and was in fact not having a valid certificate on the date of application, therefore, he should not have been placed in the wait list at all and his candidature should have been rejected. 4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have failed to scrutinise the documents of the candidates properly and despite there being a specific note by the Scrutiny Committee duly signed by the President of the Committee and two members of the Committee as is available at page No.32 of the writ petition, respondents No.1 and 2 have arbitrarily issued appointment order in favour of respondent No.4 and placed respondent No.5 in the wait list at serial No.1 despite not fulfilling educational qualification. 5. This reflects serious procedural violation in the office of respondents No.1 and 2 where the authorities have failed in discharging their duties by issuing appointment order in favour of ineligible candidate and placed ineligible candidate in the wait list. Learned Government Advocate was given an opportunity to advance his arguments on the aspect of cost, but he has not advanced any arguments on the aspect of cost, except that cost should be lenient. As far as respondent No.4 is concerned, for his appointment respondents No.1 and 2 are directly responsible. Therefore, appointment of respondent No.4 is quashed with a further direction that a cost of Rs.50,000/- be recovered from respondents No.1 and 2 personally (if they are still in service and if they have retired, then State Government shall pay the cost) and further a cost of Rs.50,000/- be recovered from respondent No.3 for wrongly placing respondent No.5 in the wait list No.1 despite he was not fulfilling the qualification as a handicapped person on the basis of not valid handicapped certificate. It is further directed that case of th.e petitioner be considered for appointment within thirty days and if there is no other more meritorious candidate than the petitioner, then appointment orders be issued, if he fulfills all the necessary qualifications as laid down in (Annexure P-1), with all consequential benefits. The cost will be payable to the petitioner by demand draft or account payee cheque.