Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 393 (MP)

Dharmendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2025-07-14

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

body2025
ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.1.2014, whereby respondent No.7 has been directed to be appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat Tala Pahadi, Block and Tehsil Khaniyadana, Janpad Khaniyadana, District Shivpuri. 2. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2014, whereby the objections preferred by the petitioner against the preparation of the provisional list was rejected. 3. Lastly, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2015 passed by the Collector in appeal, whereby the appointment of the respondent No.7 was under challenge, was dismissed. 4. Short facts of the case are that on 15.6.2012 an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and in pursuance thereof the present petitioner and respondent No.7 submitted their applications. On 29.8.2012 a provisional list was prepared and the name of petitioner was placed at serial No.6 and the name of respondent No.7 was placed at serial No.2. 5. As per advertisement and policy for appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, the candidates were required to submit their objections within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the provisional list, but as the objections by the petitioner were preferred beyond the period of 15 days, the same were not considered and were rejected vide order dated 17.1.2014 passed by CEO, District Panchayat, Shivpuri. 6. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.1.2014 on the basis of merits and the provisional list present respondent No.7 was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector which was numbered as 15/13-14/89A-23. The said appeal was finally heard by Collector, Shivpuri and vide order dated 22.5.2015 the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present petition has been filed. 7. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector which was numbered as 15/13-14/89A-23. The said appeal was finally heard by Collector, Shivpuri and vide order dated 22.5.2015 the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was possessing basic qualifications on the date of filing of the applications which was 10+2 and weightage was to be given for other educational qualifications like DCA/BCA, experience in ITI (six months course), registration guarantee scheme and work experience in ITI of 110 days, B.com from some aided university etc, but though he was possessing diploma of computer application, proportionate marks/weightage for aforesaid were not granted to him which had costed him, his merit and his name could only be placed at serial No.6. 8. Learned counsel further argued that though objections were submitted on behalf of the petitioner in time, the same were not considered and were rejected as being filed belatedly after passing over of the period for filing objections which is per se illegal and perverse, which had resulted in denial of employment to the petitioner. It was on the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel contended that the very appointment of respondent No.7 as Gram Rojgar Sahayak is totally illegal and, therefore, it be quashed and the petitioner be granted appointment on the said post. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 had submitted that on the date when the applications were invited for appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak on 15.6.2012 the petitioner was only possessing the marksheet of first semester of the DCA and admittedly, the second semester of DCA was completed by the petitioner on 10.10.2012 which was much later than the date of application. Thus, the petitioner who did not possessed the diploma in computer application on the date of filing of application was rightly not given any marks for the same and the present respondent No.7 who was possessing bachelors degree in computer (BCA) acquired at a prior date to the date of application, was rightly awarded marks and was held to be more meritorious than the petitioner, therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that his objections were not considered and his marksheets were not taken note of, is of no consequence. It was, thus, submitted that the present petition is without any merits, it be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has also submitted that the petitioner, at the time of applying for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak was not possessing the diploma in computer application as he had completed the said diploma in the month of October, 2012, therefore, no marks could have been awarded to the petitioner on the basis of his first semester marksheet, it was, thus, submitted that the petitioner has no case and the present petition be dismissed. To butress his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of apex Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others v. Chander Shekhar & Another reported in 1997 (4) SCC 18 . 11. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record. 12. The apex Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) in para 6 has held as under:- "(6) The Review petitions came up for final hearing on March 3, 1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the 33 respondent So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated Ist September, 1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by the 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 fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that dat e 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 would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similiarly placed persons could also have applied. 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 would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similiarly 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 application ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority Judgement. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others [1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168]. The reasoning in majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able to get the bests talent available and that such course was in furtherence of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible Justification It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of low 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 allowed to appear for interview." 13. In the aforesaid matter the Apex Court had laid down a preposition 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. Herein case since the petitioner had acquired the diploma of computer application, which would have fetched him additional marks, after the cut of date of filing an application, in the light of the judgment of the apex Court, this Court finds that he was not eligible for getting any marks for the said additional qualification which he had acquired after the cut of date. Thus, when respondent No.7 who was having bachelors degree in computer application apart from 10+2, which was the basic qualification for giving appointment, his appointment in said circumstances cannot be faulted with. 14. Thus, when respondent No.7 who was having bachelors degree in computer application apart from 10+2, which was the basic qualification for giving appointment, his appointment in said circumstances cannot be faulted with. 14. The present petition, thus, has no force, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.