Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyam Sunder Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
W.P. No.9301/2020
Poonam Pandey
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.9324/2020
Sushil Kumar Patel
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10095/2020
Lokendra Sharma
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10977/2020
Rashmi and another
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.11014/2020
Smt. Somlata Kushwaha and another
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.12144/2020
Deepak Kumar Bisen and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
2
W.P. No.13384/2020
Pradeep Kumar Pandey
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.14306/2020
Jyoti Mandloi
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.15524/2020
Sanjeev Kumar Dubey
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.6676/2021
Smt. Anita
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.8180/2021
Amit Kumar Pathak and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.8463/2021
Neetu Sahu and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.8956/2021
Rajesh Singh Meena and others
3
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.9790/2021
Prachi Pandey and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.9935/2021
Yagyesdhwari Lilhare
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10107/2021
Shikha Kushwah
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10491/2021
Yuvraj Singh Thakur
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10695/2021
Sachin Kumar Sahu
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10941/2021
Purnima Pawar
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
4
W.P. No.10952/2021
Roopali Goswami and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.10953/2021
Basant Kumar Rai
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.11362/2021
Bhogiram Khangar Thakur
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.11497/2021
Smt. Dileshwari Bhagat
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.12700/2021
Ambar Sharma and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.13011/2021
Keval Prasad and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.13641/2021
Shyam Sunder Patidar
5
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.13796/2021
Ranjana Rawat
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.14400/2021
Vijay Kumar Pahade
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.14480/2021
Gunjan Shivhare
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Appearance :
Shri Kapil Jain, Shri Rajesh Kumar Khare, Shri Rajesh Kumar
Chand, Shri Kashiram Patel, Ms. Ranno Rajak, Shri Manoj Kumar
Sharma, Shri Nitin Agrawal, Shri Devendra Singh, Shri Aniruddha
Prasad Pandey, Shri Brindavan Tiwari, Shri Devendra Singh and
Shri Prashant Shrivas, Advocates for the petitioners in their
respective writ petitions.
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Ms. Nirmala Nayak, Advocate fore the respondent/UGC.
Shri Rahul Diwakar with Shri Aman Gupta, Advocates for the
respondent No.3/Vyapam in WP-13796-2021.
Shri Siddharth Sharma, Advocate for the respondent/Vyapam in WP-
9324-2020 and WP-10095-2020
6
_______________________________________________________
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
Reserved for orders on : 26-8-2021
Order pronounced on : 14-9-2021
[Hearing convened through virtual/physical modes]
ORDER
(Jabalpur, dtd.14.9.2021)
Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
Regard being had to the similitude of prayers and
considering the commonality of issues exposited in these writ
petitions, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by
a common order.
2. The issue involved in these writ petitions is that,
whether two Degrees obtained simultaneously, during the same
academic year, can be considered for employment purposes,
particularly, for being selected to a post under the M.P. School
Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and
Recruitment Rules, 2018 ?
3. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts
adumbrated in W.P. No.9301/2020 (Poonam Pandey vs. State of
M.P. and others) are noted.
4. An advertisement was issued by the Professional
Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh (Vyapam) in the month of
September, 2018 for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test - 2018 for
recruitment of teachers in High Schools in the State of Madhya
Pradesh for various subjects. The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted
the M.P. School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service
Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 [hereinafter referred to as
"Rules 2018"]. The M.P. Professional Examination Board also
issued a Booklet regarding Conduction of Examination and
Selection under the School Education Department for High School
Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018.
5. The petitioner filled-up the prescribed form in the
subject of Biology after payment of requisite fees. In the application
form the petitioner has clearly specified the year of both Degrees,
i.e., M.Sc. (Zoology) from M.P. Bhoj (Open) University and B.Ed.
from the Kurukshetra University, as 2010. The petitioner had
completed the M.Sc. (Zoology) course from the M.P. Bhoj (Open)
University under Open and Distance Learning during the period
September-October 2008 to September-October 2010. The
examinations of M.Sc. First Year were conducted in September-
October 2009 and those of M.Sc. Second Year in September-
October 2010. The petitioner took admission in Keshav College of
Education under the Kurukshetra University, as a regular student in
June, 2009 for one year B.Ed. Course and appeared in the B.Ed.
Examination during June, 2010. She appeared in the examination
on 03-02-2019 at B.V.M. College of Management, Centre - 1,
Yamuna Nagar, Gwalior. The result of the High School Eligibility
Test, 2018 was declared on 29-8-2019. The petitioner secured
100.72 marks in the Examination with the consolidated
position/rank of 115.
6. It is setforth that the advertisement was issued by the
M.P. Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh under the
Rules 2018 for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test - 2018 for
recruitment of teachers in High Schools in the State of M.P. in
various subjects. The educational qualification required was under
Schedule III of the Rules 2018. As per Scheduled III the requisite
educational qualification for High School teacher is Master's Degree
in the relevant subject with Second Division and Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent. So the requisite educational
qualification provides for two Degrees, one should be Master's
Degree and the other B.Ed. or its equivalent.
7. The State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of power
conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed the
Rules 2018, which provides the manner, method and process
pertaining to service conditions and recruitment for the M.P. School
Education Service Teacher cadre. It further provides for eligibility
and disqualification of the candidates appearing and applying for
various posts of High School teachers. It is asseverated that the
disqualification which has been provided in the impugned
communication, dated 22-6-2020, that a candidate who possesses
two Degrees in one Academic Year, will be disqualified, was not
provided in the parent Rules 2018, however after completion of
whole selection process this disqualification is issued by the
impugned order dated 22-6-2020, which per se, is illegal and
arbitrary.
8. It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Rules and Instructions Booklet published by the
Professional Examination Board provides essential qualifications
and disqualification of the candidates, but no such disqualification
as described in the impugned communication dated 22-6-2020, is
provided in the Booklet.
9. The Directorate of Public Instructions, Bhopal published
the documents verification schedule in its Official website for Uchh
Madhyamik Shikshak (High School Teacher) for all qualified
candidates on 23-6-2020. The documents verification was to
commence from 01-7-2020 and continued till 17-7-2020 in various
districts of Madhya Pradesh depending on number of students in
each district. The final selection list was supposed to be published
by last week of July, 2020. Counselling of the petitioner was
scheduled on 9-7-2020, but it was postponed and was finally
conducted on 12-4-2021, whereby candidature of the petitioner was
put on hold.
10. It is contended that when the petitioner was to attend the
counselling after successfully securing 115th position in the selection
process, the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 23-6-
2020, wherein it is prescribed that the candidates who are having
two Degrees simultaneously in one academic year, would not be
eligible. The aforesaid order has been assailed on the ground that it
runs counter to the Rules 2018, which does not provide any such
disqualification. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
commended us to the Apex Court decision rendered in the case of
State of Karnataka vs. H. Ganesh Kamath reported in AIR 1983
SC 550, wherein it held that it is well settled principle of
interpretation of statutes, that the conferment of rule-making power
by an Act, does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule
which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is
inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto. Thus, the bone
contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 23-6-
2020 is contrary to the Rules 2018.
11. Rule 9 of the Rules 2018 governs disqualification and
Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 provides that the provision of M.P. Civil
Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 and all other
disqualifications notified by the Government from time to time,
shall be applicable to the candidates. Thus, it is contended that no
such disqualification of two Degrees obtained simultaneously,
during the same academic year, has been notified by the
Government in its Official Gazette. It is argued that as per Rule 9(4)
of the Rules 2018, the word "notified" as per Law Lexicon
Dictionary authored by P. Ramanatha Iyer, means "notified in an
official gazette". It is further propounded by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that taking resort to Section 23 of the M.P. General
Clauses Act, 1957 would go to show that, if any order or publication
is required to be notified, then it will be deemed to be notified only
when it is published in the Official Gazette. It is assiduously urged
that even though the word "notified" is appearing in Rule 9(4) of the
Rules 2018, but it does not provide to be published in the Official
Gazette, because the same is provided in the M.P. General Clauses
Act that an order which is required to be notified, has to be
mandatorily published in the Official Gazette. It is argued that
Section 23 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 provides only for
the Madhya Pradesh Acts or any Rules made thereunder, is also not
available with the State Government, because the Rules 2018 has
been formulated directly under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India which is parent of all the Acts and Rules throughout the
country.
12. To substantiate the aforesaid submissions, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the judgment
of the Supreme Court Court rendered in the case of Rajendra
Agricultural University vs. Ashok Kumar Prasad and others,
(2010) 1 SCC 730, wherein Section 36 of Bihar Agricultural
Universities Act, 1987 and Section 28 of Bihar and Orissa General
Clauses Act, 1917 were interpreted, which is pari materia to Section
23 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957. In para 17 of the said
judgment it is held that the provision contained in Section 36(4) of
Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, requiring publication of statutes
in the Official Gazette, has to be treated mandatory. It is strenuously
urged that although in Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018 the words "to be
published in Official Gazette" are not appearing but the word
"notified" is clearly appearing, and with the aid of Section 23 of the
M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 comes into play and the impugned
communication dated 22-6-2020 was required to be mandatorily
published in the Official Gazette.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
commended us to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the
case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards vs. Mandal Revenue
Officer, (1996) 6 SCC 634, wherein it is held that the object of
publication in the Official Gazette is not merely to give information
to public. Official Gazette as the very name indicates, is an official
document. It is published under the authority of the Government.
Publication of an Order or Rule in the Official Gazette is final.
Reliance is further placed on the decision rendered in the case of
Sambhanath Jha vs. Kedar Prasad Sinha, (1972) 1 SCC 573,
which says that the requirement of publication in the Gazette is an
imperative requirement and cannot be dispensed with.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred
to a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of
State of M.P. vs. Fazal Hussain Ranabali Bohra, AIR 1968 MP
138 (DB), wherein it is observed that the word "notified" appearing
in Rule 2(3) of the Defence of India Rule would mean notified in the
Official Gazette.
14. Thus, the first plank of submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, since the impugned order dated 22-
6-2020 has not been notified as disqualification by the Government
in terms of the Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018, therefore, the aforesaid
Rule could not have been operated against the petitioner. It is
further canvassed that there is no bar, if a person pursues two
Degree Courses in one academic year, but the one Degree should be
through Distance Learning Mode and another as regular. It is
assiduously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she
underwent the B.Ed. Course from the Kurukshetra University and
M.Sc. (Zoology) from M.P. Bhoj (Open) University under Open and
Distance Learning. Pursuing two Degrees, out of which one through
Distance Learning never had been a bar and till date, students are
pursuing two Courses simultaneously, but one through Distance
Learning Programme. It is argued that the students are allowed to
pursue two regular courses in one academic year, but this is not the
case here, because the petitioner has pursued one regular course and
the other through Distance Learning programme.
15. A reference is made to the University Grant
Commission (UGC) meeting dated 29-10-2012, which took the
decision that a student enrolled in a Degree programme under
regular mode, may be allowed to pursue a maximum of one
additional Degree Programme simultaneously, under Open/Distance
Learning mode from the same or a different University. But, they
did not allow two Degree programmes under regular mode.
Thereafter, the UGC issued a public notice dated 15-01-2016 to the
effect that they do not endorse the idea of allowing the students to
pursue two Degrees simultaneously. Thereafter, a Press statement
was also issued by the Secretary, UGC, which was published in the
Times of India newspaper on 30-6-2020, stating that a decision has
been taken to allow the students to pursue two Degrees
simultaneously, but for both Degrees the mode of delivery will be
different. A student pursuing a regular degree can pursue a second
degree only via Open Distance Learning (ODL) or Oneline mode.
16. On the basis of the aforesaid factual assertions, it is
contended that the previous view of the UGC, vide Public Notice
dated 15-01-2016, has also been relied upon by the State
Government in their counter reply and the same has been superseded
by 546th Meeting of the UGC convened on 14-5-2020. The UGC
has also forwarded its decision to the Ministry of Human Resources
Development. A further reference is made to the Public Notice,
dated 15-01-2016 published by the UGC, wherein they did not
endorse the idea, allowing the students to pursue two degrees
simultaneously. But, in this public notice it was not clear, whether it
was for two regular Degrees or one regular Degree and one Open
Distance. It is canvassed that the Distance Learning Courses do not
require any mandatory attendance and it has altogether different
mode of learning, which is provided in Clause 3 of the UGC
Regulations 1985 for Distance Education and its examinations are
also conducted as per Clause 4 of the said Regulations.
17. It is urged that in the obtaining factual matrix, it can be
inferred that so far as the Public Notice dated 15-01-2016 is
concerned, which is based on Bachelor Degree and Master Degree,
Regulation 2003, is actually for two regular Degrees acquired
simultaneously, and not for one Regular and another through Open
Distance mode. It is contended that some of the candidates, who
were selected in the year 2012-13 out of which some of them, who
have pursued two Degrees simultaneously, had been considered for
Samviliyan.
18. The respondents have filed reply and submitted that the
recruitment process was conducted under the Rules 2018. Rule 8 of
the Rules 2018 prescribes condition of eligibility for direct
recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 provides educational
qualification which is prescribed in Column 5 of Schedule III. As
per Column 5 of Schedule III, educational qualification for the post
of Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak is Master Degree in the relevant
subject with second division and B.Ed or its equivalent.
19. In the Recruitment Rules 2018 for educational
qualifications the word "Degree" has been specifically mentioned.
The Degree which is issued by the University can be said as valid
degree when it fulfils the terms and conditions and guidelines issued
by the UGC, which is a Regulatory Authority. Obtaining a valid
degree for recruitment is inclusive in the educational qualification
prescribed under Rules 2018. The UGC has issued a public notice
on 15-01-2016 stating that they do not endorse an idea of allowing
the students to pursue two Degrees simultaneously. Therefore, two
Degrees obtained by the petitioner simultaneously, cannot be said as
valid degree and the petitioner cannot be declared qualified for
appointment on the post in question, on the basis of invalid degree.
It is argued that by the impugned order dated 23-6-2020 the
respondents have not prescribed any disqualification.
20. The respondents have commended us to a Full Bench
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in W.P.
No.2807/2014 (R. Chitra and others vs. Member Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu Teachers' Recruitment Board,
Chennai and others), wherein a similar issue has been considered
and decided against the candidates.
21. It is assiduously urged that as per Rule 9(4) of the Rules
2018 the disqualification notified by the Government from time to
time, shall be applicable to the candidates. Section 23 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 is not applicable in the present case,
because the same is applicable to making rules and bye-laws,
whereby any Act or Regulation empowers to make rules or bye-laws
is expressed to be given, subject to the condition that the rules or
bye-laws be made final after previous publications.
22. The Rules 2018 have been formulated under the proviso
of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which confers the power
to the State Government to notify disqualifications. The word
"notified" cannot be taken in a sense that the State Government is
required to publish all other disqualifications in the Official Gazette.
The word "notified" used in Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018 has not
been defined under the Rules. Therefore, the dictionary meaning of
the word should be ascertained for construing the true meaning of
the word.
23. The learned counsel for the respondents has further
relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Desha
Singh, through L.Rs. By Ram Pyari Bai Wd/o Desha Singh and
another vs. Madanlal son of Dalumal, reported in 1992 MPLJ
95, wherein it is held that when the meaning of the word "notified"
is not defined under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961,
then in such circumstances, a resort should be made to the dictionary
meaning of the word. As per Concise Oxford Dictionary the word
"notify" means - inform or give notice to (a person), make known;
announce or report (a thing).
24. The learned counsel for the respondents urged with
vehemence that the issue involved in the present case is squarely
covered by the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court
rendered in the case of R. Chitra and others (supra).
25. The University Grant Commission has filed a short
return in the matter and stated that the aforesaid decision has been
submitted for concurrence of the Ministry of Education, Govt. of
India, and once approval is granted, it would issue appropriate
notification to that effect. Thus, there is no final decision by the
UGC in the matter.
26. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and bestowed our anxious consideration on their respective
arguments advanced.
27. In the present batch of writ petitions, propriety of the
impugned order dated 23-6-2020 has been assailed mainly on
following grounds :
(i) The impugned order has not been
notified in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018,
which requires disqualification to be notified by
the Government from time to time, and the same
shall be made applicable to the candidates.
Reliance has been placed in Clause 23 of the
M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 contending that
the disqualification debarring the candidates,
who have secured two Degrees simultaneously,
in the same academic year, has to be notified in
the Official Gazette.
(ii) The Rules 2018 does not provide any
such disqualification of the candidate or his
candidature on the ground that the candidate is
possessing two degrees simultaneously, in one
academic session.
(iii) The petitioners have not undertaken two
regular Degree Courses and in fact, they have
done one as regular Degree and the other
through Open Distance Learning Programme
and this type of situation has been accepted by
the UGC in its Press Release dated 22-5-2020.
(iv) The Rules 2018, till the latest
instructions dated 10-01-2020 issued by the
respondents, does not provide for any such
disqualification, and at the fag end of selection
process when counselling is about to commence
issuance of the impugned order is illegal.
(v) The impugned order is contrary to the
Rules 2018 and the same has been passed in
violation of the Articles 16 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India.
(vi) Merely by executive instructions the
respondents cannot bypass the Rules 2018 and
if that being so, the impugned order is perverse.
There is no disqualification of such kind
attached with the Rule 9 of the Rules 2018 and
when the Rules 2018 does not provide for such
disqualification, the State Government does not
have the authority to issue conditions for
disqualification of the candidates.
28. Regard being had to the arguments advanced on behalf
of the parties and having perused the records, it is luminescent that
the recruitment process was conducted under the Rules 2018. The
Rule 8 of the Rules 2018 prescribes condition of eligibility for direct
recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 contemplates educational
qualification which is prescribed under Column 5 of Schedule III.
As per Column 5 of Schedule III, educational qualification for the
post of Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak is Master Degree in relevant
subject with Second Division and B.Ed or its equivalent.
29. In the Recruitment Rules 2018, for educational
qualification, the word "Degree" has been specifically mentioned.
The Degree which is issued by the University can be said as a valid
degree when it fulfils the terms, conditions and guidelines issued by
the UGC, which is a Regulatory Authority. Obtaining a valid degree
for recruitment is inclusive in the educational qualification as
prescribed under the Rules 2018.
30. The UGC has issued a public notice on 15-01-2016
stating that they do not endorse the idea, allowing the students to
pursue two Degrees simultaneously. Since, the UGC which is a
Regulatory Authority, has not approved the idea, allowing the
students to pursue two Degrees simultaneously, therefore, two
Degrees obtained by the petitioners simultaneously, cannot be said
to be valid and the petitioners cannot be declared qualified for
appointment on the post in question, on the basis of invalid degrees.
It cannot be inferred that the respondents have prescribed a new
disqualification by the impugned order dated 23-6-2020. In fact, the
said order is clarificatory in nature and does not run contrary to the
Rules 2018 or the Booklet of the Professional Examination Board.
31. The issue which has cropped up for consideration in the
present case - Whether two Degrees (dual Degrees) obtained
simultaneously, during the same academic year, can be considered
for employment purpose, particularly for being selected to a post
under the Rules 2018, has come up for consideration before the Full
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of R.
Chitra and others (supra), wherein the UGC has taken the stand
that earlier it had allowed the students to pursue dual Degree
courses. However, recently after consulting with the educational
bodies and considering various representations from the general
public as well as educational agencies, the earlier view of the UGC
was reviewed by an expert committee. Now the UGC has taken a
decision to allow the students to pursue dual Degree courses
simultaneously, one through a regular stream as full-time course
and the other through Distance Education mode or an Open
University or Online in the same academic year. However, the
second Degree should be of the same level or of the lower level of
the full-time academic programme. The UGC also stated that the
aforesaid decision of the UGC has been submitted for concurrence
of the Ministry of Education, Government of India, and once the
approval is granted the UGC would issue appropriate notification to
that effect.
32. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in R. Chitra
and others (supra), considering the aforesaid stand of the UGC
ruled thus :
"Unless the dual degrees obtained
simultaneously, in the same academic year, is
recognized, a candidate cannot seek for a direction to
the appointing authority to select and appoint him/her
to a particular post. Incidentally, the Division Bench
has also held that unless a specific direction is issued by
the UGC in the form of Statutory notification, mere
recommendation of the UGC approving the proposal to
permit the students to pursue two degrees
simultaneously, in the same academic year, have only a
recommendatory value. As stated earlier, unless and
until, the UGC recognizes such degree courses, there is
no obligation on the part of the University or the
employers/recruiting agencies, to recognize such degree
courses in the absence of any such rules in this regard."
33. As regards publication of notification in the Official
Gazette, being an essential requirement for prescribing
disqualification, it is to be noted that by the impugned order dated
23-6-2020, no new disqualification was prescribed, because
securing appointment on the basis of Degree is inclusive under the
Rules 2018. Moreover, Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
is not applicable in the present case, because the same is applicable
for making of Rules and bye-laws, where any Act or Regulation
empowers to make Rules or Bye-laws is expressed to be given to the
condition of the Rules or bye-laws being made after previous
publications. If any Rules or Regulations is made under any Act,
then it has to be published in the Official Gazette and, therefore, the
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners
would not apply to the facts of the present case.
34. In the present case, no new rules or bye-laws have been
framed which are required to be published in the Official Gazette.
Rules 2018 have been made under the proviso of Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, which confers power to the State Government
to notify the disqualification. The word "notified" cannot be taken
in a sense that the State Government is required to publish all other
disqualifications in the Official Gazette. The word "notified" used
in Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2018, has not been defined under the Rules
2018 and, therefore, dictionary meaning of the word should be
adopted for construing the true meaning of the word. In the case at
hand, since the impugned order dated 23-6-2020 was issued
subsequently and is official in nature and no new disqualification
was prescribed, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that in absence of publication of notification in the
Official Gazette of the impugned order dated 23-6-2020 has no legal
sanctity, does not merit consideration and the same being sans
substratum, deserves to be repelled.
35. In the case of Desha Singh through LRs (supra) where
this Court has taken the view that the word "notified" is not defined
under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in such
circumstances, resort should be taken to the dictionary meaning of
the word and as per Concise Oxford Dictionary, the word "notify"
means - inform or give notice to (a person), make known; announce
or report (a thing).
36. In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussions, we do not
perceive any illegality in the impugned order dated 23-6-2020
warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
writ petitions being sans merits, are dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(Mohammad Rafiq) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2021.09.15 11:38:36 +05'30'
