Krishna Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6696 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR



WRIT PETITION NO.                                        10216/2012
Parties Name                        SANJAY DATT DUBEY

                                                   VS.

                                    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION NO.                                        1293/2013
Parties Name                        KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH

                                                   VS.

                                    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Bench Constituted                   Single Bench
Judgment delivered By               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether       approved        for
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioner: Shri H. K. Upadhyay and Shri Mantosh
                            Mishra, Advocates.

                                    For Respondent/State : Smt. Priyanka Mishra, Govt.

Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Girish Kumar Shrivastava, (W.P No.1293/2013) Advocate.

For Private Respondents: Shri Udayan Tiwari, Advocate. (WP No.10216/2012) and Respondent no.5 WP 1293/2013 For Respondent No.6 : Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, Advocate.

                                    (WP No.1293/2013)
Law laid down                       -
Significant       paragraph -
number


                                        (O R D E R )
                                        23/10/2021

Both the petitions, i.e. W.P No.10216/2012 & W.P

No.1293/2013 involve similar issues, therefore, they are

decided by this common order.

1. Petitioner in W.P No.10216/2012 has filed this

petition making a prayer for removal of respondents No. 6 to

10 from post of Patwari in compliance of letter No.158/Exam-

10/12, dated 03.04.2012. Commissioner Land Records and

Settlement, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh wrote a letter to all

Collectors of State in compliance of order dated 21.01.2011

and 8.4.2011 passed in W.P. No. 841/2010 (Ved Prakash

Sharma vs State of M.P.) and W.P. No. 2871/2010 (Ajay

Pratap Singh vs State of M.P.) giving following

directions:-

(1) Diploma Certificates issued by Dr. C.V. Raman University before 11.02.2005 is recognized. (2) Diploma Certificates issued after 11.02.2005 till reorganization of University under Section 2(f) of University Grants Commission Act, 1956, is not recognized. (3) State Government vide its memorandum No.1333/1734/2009/7/4, dated 26.08.2009 has granted time till 30.11.2009 to produce Diploma Certificates. Diploma Certificates which were produced after 30.11.2009 are not recognized.

2. On basis of aforesaid directions, Collectors were

directed to give opportunity of hearing to the candidates and

pass appropriate orders.

3. Similarly in linked matter, W.P No.1293/2013 prayer is

made by petitioner for quashing order dated 8.11.2012 by

which representation of petitioner for giving him appointment

and cancellation of appointment of respondent nos.5 to 14

was dismissed. Petitioner has also made a prayer for

quashing of order dated 6.12.2012 by which appointment

was given to private respondent nos.5 to 14 as Patwari.

4. Petitioners in these petitions have raised a singular

issue that private respondents had obtained educational

qualification after cut-off date, therefore, their appointment

is bad and same may be quashed.

5. Brief facts in these petitions are as under:-

Professional Examination Board has issued an

advertisement for conducting Examination for appointment

of Patwaris in Revenue Department under Land Records and

Settlement. Last date for filling examination forms was

7.7.2008. As per the Examination Rules of 2008,

educational qualification required for appointment to post of

Patwari was as under:-

"1.8 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk% gk;j lsdaMªh ;k gkbZ Ldwy ¼10$2½ mRrh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gS lkFk gh 'O' Level certification from DOEACC/IETE ;k UGC ls ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofon~;ky; }kjk [email protected]`[email protected];rk [email protected]) laLFkk ls 1 o"khZ; dEI;wVj fMIyksek ¼DCA½ ;k dEI;wVj esa mPp f'k{kk izkIr gksuk pkfg;sA

In W.P No.10216/2012 respondent nos.6 to 10 namely;

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Digvijay Singh Rajpoot, Jyoti Nigam,

Anuj Jaiswal and Mahendra Kumar Mishra, had obtained Post

Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from C. V. Raman

University on 17.10.2008.

Respondent nos.6 to 10 of W.P No.10216/2012 are also

impleaded as respondent nos.6 to 10 in W.P No.1293/2012.

Other private respondents in W.P No.1293/2013 i.e.

respondent nos.5, 11 to 14 are Deep Kumar Pandey, Sumita

Shrivastava, Kshipra Tiwari, Varsha Asati and Jyoti Paroha.

Deep Kumar Pandey had obtained Diploma Certificate

from Global University, Nagaland on 2.9.2008 and rest of the

respondents, namely Sumita Shrivastava, Kshipra Tiwari,

Varsha Asati and Jyoti Paroha had obtained Post Graduate

Diploma in Computer Application from Makhanlal

Chaturvedi, University, Bhopal on 8.9.2008.

6. It is submitted by counsel appearing for the petitioners

that no action was taken by State pursuant to directions

issued by the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement

Madhya Pradesh. Services of private respondents are to be

terminated as they have acquired specific eligibility that is

Diploma in Computer after the cut-off date by a non-

recognized institution. On basis of aforesaid submissions,

prayer is made to direct official respondents to take action in

accordance with law against private respondents.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that it is

settled law that a candidate applying for appointment to a

particular post must have acquired educational qualification

as prescribed in Rules on the cut-off date. Result of

candidate must have been declared before cut-off date.

Mark-sheet may be issued to such candidates at a later date

but declaration of result of the candidate has to be before

cut-off date. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on

judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of

Bhupinderpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab

and others, (2000) 5 SCC 262, Shankar K. Mandal and

others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2003) 9 SCC

519, Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar,

(1997) 4 SCC 18 and Alka Ojha vs. Rajasthan Public

Service Commission, (2011) 9 SCC 445.

8. On strength of aforesaid judgments, it was argued by

learned counsel for petitioners that respondents had

acquired eligible educational qualification after cut-off date,

therefore, their appointment was bad in law and Revenue

authorities has wrongly considered the issue and permitted

them to do training and thereafter appointed as Patwari.

9. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that

petitioners were not successful candidate, therefore, they

have no locus standi to file the writ petitions. It was further

submitted that Government had extended the period for

submission of Diploma Certificate and respondents had

submitted their Diploma Certificate on the extended date. It

is further submitted that respondents had appeared in the

examination and had qualified the examination but mark-

sheet was issued to them later on, therefore, no fault can be

found on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel for

respondents also argued that respondents were granted

appointment pursuant to order issued by this Court in writ

petitions. Said orders were not challenged before the Apex

Court and same has become final, therefore, writ petition

filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs.

Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, AIR 2012 SC 3281, held as

under:-

"11. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (See: Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal & Ors., 1993(1) SCC (Supp.) 714; and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1817)."

12. This Court in the case of Smt. Renu Devi vs.

Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena reported in

2016 (4) MPLJ 223, has considered the scope of cut-off date

vis-a-vis acquisition of qualification and held that acquisition

of qualification would be considered from the date of

declaration of result and from issuance of mark-sheet. The

Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.269/2016 vide order

dated 30.8.2016 confirmed the aforesaid judgment in case

of Smt. Mangesh vs. The Commissioner, Chambal

Division, Morena and others. As per the said judgment

passed by this Court, it was held that qualification would be

reckoned from the date of declaration of result. Division

Bench of this Court in Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar and

others vs. State of M.P. and others, vide its order dated

8.3.2011 passed in W.P No.2871/2010(S) has clarified last

date for acquiring qualification in case of Patwari

Examination 2008. Division Bench held that last date for

acquiring the qualification is 7.7.2008 and circular issued by

State Government dated 27.7.2009 and 26.8.2009 issued by

Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement were only in

respect of those candidates who already acquired the

qualification prior to cut-off date of 7.7.2008. Such

candidates could submit their Degree Certificate/Diploma

Certificate issued by particular institution till 30.11.2009.

13. Considering the aforesaid law laid down by Apex Court

and by this Court, case of petitioners as well as respondents

have to be examined on the touch-stone whether private

respondents had acquired educational qualification i.e.

Diploma in Computer Application before the cut-off date of

7.7.2008 and whether their result was declared prior to it or

not. Those private respondents whose Diploma results were

declared prior to cut-off date of 7.7.2008 can submit their

Diploma Certificate till 30.11.2009.

14. In this case respondents Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Digvijay

Singh Rajpoot, Jyoti Nigam, Anuj Jaiswal and Mahendra

Kumar Mishra obtained Post Graduate Diploma in Computer

Application in Session 2007-2008 and their mark-sheet was

issued on 17.10.2008 which is after the cut-off date

mentioned in Patwari Examination 2008.

15. Now it is to be seen whether declaration of result of

these respondents was prior to 7.7.2008 or not.

16. State Govt. in its reply has also not stated that result of

private respondents have been declared prior to 7.7.2008.

In their reply only bald statement is made that respondents

appeared in the examination prior to 7.7.2008, therefore,

even if mark-sheet is issued to them after cut-off date,

therefore, they have acquired requisite educational

qualification prior to cut-off date. No specific date of

appearance in examination and declaration of result is

mentioned in reply of State Government. In view of above

stand of State the petitions cannot be accepted.

17. Respondent nos.6, 7 & 10 had filed their additional

return and had stated that their result was declared prior to

7.7.2008. In support of their contention they had filed copy

of order passed in W.A No.441/2013. Reliance was placed in

para-11 of said order wherein it was mentioned that

respondents had acquired qualification of Diploma in

Computer Application much before cut off date and result

was declared on 5.7.2008 and mark-sheet/certificates were

issued subsequently. Private respondents were not party in

W.A No.441/2013 and reply was filed to justify eligibility

qualification for one Vijay Kumar Kshetre and private

respondents will not get benefit of reply in aforesaid Writ

Appeal as respondents have failed to demonstrate that they

are identically situated with Vijay Kumar Kshetre.

Respondents had failed to file any documents to show that

their result was declared prior to 7.7.2008.

18. Respondent no.8 Jyoti Nigam has stated that her case

was considered by Collector as per law laid down in

Bhupendrapal Singh (supra) and no irregularity or

illegality is found in her appointment. Dr. C. V. Raman

University has been declared to be competent to issue

Diploma Certificate, therefore, writ petition be dismissed.

19. Respondent Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in W.P No.10216/2012

failed to show that result has been declared prior to cut-off

date i.e. 7.7.2008. Mark-sheet has been issued to said

respondents on 8.9.2008 which is after the cut-off date.

Respondent Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 had not acquired

educational qualification i.e. One year Diploma in Computer

Application prior to cut-off date (7.7.2008).

20. Respondent no.5 Deep Kumar Pandey in W.P

No.1293/2013 had obtained Diploma from Global University,

Nagaland on 2.9.2008 after cut-off date and other

respondents i.e. respondent nos.11 to 14 namely; Sumita

Shrivastava, Kshipra Tiwari, Varsha Asati and Jyoti Paroha

had obtained Diploma on 8.9.2008 from Makhanlal

Chaturvedi University, Bhopal after the cut-off date of

7.7.2008.

21. In view of same respondent nos.5, 11,12,13 & 14 had

not acquired educational qualification before the cut-off

date.

22. Respondent no.6 Rakesh Kumar Gupta had filed W.P

No.9829/2010 (S) which was disposed of by this Court on

16.11.2010 in terms of order passed in W.P No.6906/2010(S)

Indra Kumar Borban and another vs. State of M.P and

others. In said writ petition, Diploma Certificate issued by

Dr. C. V. Raman University was held to be valid and it was

held that Dr. C. V. Raman University is empowered to award

Graduate, Degree and Certificates and petition was allowed

and State was directed to verify the certificate issued by

University in accordance with law. In case of Indra Kumar

(supra) issue was regarding validity of Diploma Certificate

issued by Dr. C. V. Raman University and said writ petition

does not consider the issue of acquisition of educational

qualification before cut-off date. Petition filed by Rakesh

Kumar Gupta i.e. W.P No.9829/2010 (S) was allowed in light

of Indra Kumar (supra) W.P No.6906/2010(S). Said order

will not come in way of this Court in deciding the issue

whether private respondents had acquired desired

qualification before cut-off date as said issue was not in

question in W.P No.9829/2010(S) or in W.P No.6906/2010 (S).

23. Similar is case of respondent nos.7 & 10 Digvijay Singh

and Mahendra Kumar Mishra. Said respondents also filed

writ petition before this Court bearing W.P

No.12430/2010(S). Said writ petition was also disposed off

in line with order passed by this Court in case of Indra

Kumar (supra).

24. In view of same, said respondents will not derive any

benefit from orders passed by this Court in Writ Petitions

filed by them.

25. As private respondents did not have educational

qualification prescribed in Patwari Examination 2008 on cut-

off date i.e. on 7.7.2008, therefore, their appointment is bad

in law. Respondent no.1 is directed to take action in case of

private respondents in W.P No.10216/2012 and W.P

No,1293/2013 accordingly.

26. In view of same, writ petitions filed by petitioners are

partly allowed.

27. A copy of this order be retained in W.P No.1293/2013.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms

Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2021.10.25 12:06:51 +05'30'