Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 232 (MP)

Ajay Singh Rawat v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2025-03-27

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and further be pleased to issue the appropriate writ calling the record of the selection process from the respondents for the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor. (ii) That, impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 14.02.2013 appointing respondent no.6 as MTS on OBC category post and selection list Annexure P-2 to that extent may kindly be declared as illegal and the same may kindly be quashed. (iii) That, a further direction may kindly be given to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Malaria Technical Supervisor in place of respondent no.6. (iv) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be given to the petitioner along with costs." 2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that all the grounds raised by the petitioner except that respondent No.6 was not holding a valid driving license of two wheeler, have been considered by this Court by a separate order passed today in the case of Nitin Gautam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P.No.4202/2013) . It is submitted that so far as this additional ground is concerned, note No.3 appended to advertisement required that candidate applying for the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor must have a valid license to run two wheeler vehicle, whereas respondent No.6 was having a learning license which was valid from 20.06.2012 to 19.12.2012 and the advertisement was published in the Newspaper dated on 28.07.2012 and according to this advertisement, last date for submission of the application was within a period of 10 days from the date of publication. It is submitted that on the date of publication of advertisement, respondent No.6 was not having a valid driving license. 3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent No.6. It is submitted that the driving license to drive two wheeler vehicle was issued on 30.07.2012 which has been filed as Annexure R-6/2. It is submitted that as the cut off date was not mentioned in the advertisement, therefore, it has to be presumed that the cut off date was the last date for submission of application form. It is submitted that the driving license to drive two wheeler vehicle was issued on 30.07.2012 which has been filed as Annexure R-6/2. It is submitted that as the cut off date was not mentioned in the advertisement, therefore, it has to be presumed that the cut off date was the last date for submission of application form. Since the advertisement was issued on 28.07.2012, therefore the cut off date would be 07.08.2012 and since the respondent No.6 was already issued the regular driving license on 30.07.2012, therefore, it is clear that he was having a valid driving license. 4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others vs. Chander Shekhar And Another, (1997) 4 SCC 18 has held as under:- "6. The review petitions came up for final hearing on 3-3-1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu & Kashmir and for the 33 respondents. So far as the first issue referred to in our Order dated 1-9-1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview." 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Dipitimayee Parida vs. State of Orissa and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 687 has held as under:- "16. Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application. This has been so held in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan stating: (SCC p. 175, para 10) “10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed.” Thus where specific date has not been mentioned, then the last date for submission of application form would be of the cut off date. The advertisement was issued on 28.07.2012 with a specific stipulation that the last date is 10 days from the date of publication. Thus counsel for the respondent No.6 is right making the submission that the last date for submission of application form was 07.08.2012. Since the respondent No.6 was already issued a regular driving license on 30.07.2012, therefore, he was having a valid driving license as per the note no.3 appended to the advertisement. 7. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. This petition fails and is hereby dismissed.