Mohit Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4931 MP

                                 1



           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       W.P. No.12770/2019
        (Mohit Soni and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.)
Gwalior, Dated:02.09.2021

      Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
      Shri Devendra Chaubey, learned Government Advocate for
respondents/State.

With consent heard finally.

Present petition preferred by the petitioners being

aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.05.2019 (Annexure

P-1), whereby candidature of petitioners has been rejected on the

ground that names of the petitioners were not registered in the

employment exchange because registration was valid till May,

2018 and petitioners have not got their registration renewed.

2. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioners that

combined examination for all the departments in State

Government for the purpose of appointment of Assistant Grade-

III, was undertaken by Vyapam and it appears that petitioners at

the time of submission of application forms were having the

registration at employment exchange but expired midway.

Employment exchange registration is not required for general

examinations conducted by the Government of M.P. for the

purpose of grant of public employment therefore, petitioners did

not renew the same. Petitioners have finally selected in the

written examination conducted by Vyapam and result is annexed

herewith as Annexure P-3. Copy of Rules relating to the

department of Public Prosecution for the posts [Madhya Pradesh

Public Prosecution Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment

Rules, 1998] in question is also enclosed.

3. It has been communicated to the petitioners that their

selection stood cancelled because of non-holding of registration

of employment exchange alive on the day when they have

submitted online application forms in response to the

advertisement in question.

4. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioners that action

and inaction of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Such

condition cannot be applied mandatorily because it is not the

qualification which goes to the root of the matter but it is

condition which is directory in nature.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order

dated 20.01.2011 passed by this Court in the bunch of Writ

Petition No.841/2010(S) (Ved Prakash Sharma and Ors. Vs.

State of M.P. and Ors.) reported on 2011 3 MPLJ 148 in which

identical controversy was considered.

6. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State

opposed the prayer and submitted that as per Madhya Pradesh

Public Prosecution Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment

Rules, 1998, whereby in view of the Rules 11-1 and 2 as well as

specific condition No.3.2, of e/;izns'k dfu"B lsok ¼la;qDr vgZrk½

ijh{kk fu;e] 2013] the candidates were required to be registered in

the employment exchange and keep registration alive but they

have not registered the same and as per the advertisement issued

by the Vyapam, they were required to have registration alive and

in absence thereof, they are not entitled for any relief.

7. Heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the

record appended thereto.

8. This is the case where Vyapam has conducted recruitment

drive of different departments for Assistant Grade-III posts and

admittedly, Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution Class-III (Non-

Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1998 and Madhya Pradesh

Kanishtha Sewa (Sanyukta Aharta) Pariksha Rules, 2013 do not

contemplate such qualification in specific terms in the

advertisement. It was nowhere mentioned that candidate had to

keep his registration employment exchange alive. This aspect has

been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Kishore K. Pati

Vs. District Inspector of Schools Midnapore and Ors., reported

in 2000 (9) SCC 405. Relying upon the said judgment,

coordinate Bench in the case of Vedprakash (supra) filed as

Annexure P-10 with petition has considered this aspect in para 21

and 22, which are reproduced as under:-

21. Now coming to the issue of non-availability of the valid registration in the employment exchange is concerned the said issue has been duly considered by the Apex Court in the case of Kishore K. Pati (supra). The Apex Court has held as thus:-

Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 7 contended that in the writ appeal filed by him before the Division Bench, he has raised several questions which have not been answered and therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to remit the matter to the Division Bench for redisposal. On going through the counter- affidavit and the impugned judgment of the High Court, we do not find any contention raised not being answered by the Division Bench. On the other hand, the Division Bench has disposed the appeal on the ground that the consideration of the case of the appellant and Respondent No.7 whose case has not been sponsored by the employment exchange

is not sustainable in law and as we have said earlier, the said view is not correct. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and allow this appeal."

22. It is to be observed that condition No.1.12 is not the mandatory condition pertaining to eligibility, but it is directory to regulate the process of selection. In the present case the selection on the post of Patwari has been made after issuing the advertisement and holding the eligibility test. On the found eligible in the test and possessing the other requisite qualification merely on the ground of non-availability of valid registration in the employment exchange of the concerned district may not be a ground to reject the candidature of the petitioners on qualifying the eligibility test. Non- availability of the certificate may term as irregularity, but thereby eligible candidate cannot be held ineligible only for the said reason. Therefore, the order passed by the respondents rejecting the candidature of the selected candidates is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and such orders or instructions or action by the respondents taken by the oral orders is hereby quashed.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents/State could not dispute

the passing of the said order, subject matter of controversy and

similitude of subject matter.

10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said imposition

of condition was arbitrary and excessive, therefore, impugned

order dated 31-05-2019 deserves to be set-aside and is hereby set

aside. Respondents are directed to proceed for appointments of

petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible for the posts.

11. The impugned order is set aside and petition stands allowed

in following terms.

1. The impugned order dated 31-05-2019 is hereby set-

aside.

2. Respondents are directed to consider the case of

petitioners for appointment on the post of Assistant

Grade-III in accordance with law, if they are

otherwise eligible on other counts. No cost.

Present petition is disposed of.

                                                            (Anand Pathak)
   Ashish*                                                     Judge

ASHISH
CHAURASIA
2021.09.07
14:03:36
+05'30'