Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Upadhyay vs Rani Durgavati University, ... on 27 April, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 27th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 9046 of 2014
Between:-
ASHISH UPADHYAY S/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN
UPADHYAY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, UPRAINGANJ
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NIKHIL TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL )
AND
1. RANI DURGAVATI UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR ITS
REGISTRAR L.D.C. IN RANI DURGAWATI
UNIVERSITY (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAGHVENDRA SHRIVSTAVA S/O A.B. L.
SHRIVASTAVA ARE WORKING AS A L.D.C. IN RANI
DURGAWATI UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. RAMESH TIWARI S/O LALMANI TIWARI ARE
WORKING AS A L.D.C. IN RANI DURGAWATI
UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SIDDHMUNI PATHAK S/O SHRI SHAMBHU
PRASAD PATHAK ARE WORKING AS A L.D.C. IN
RANI DURGAWATI UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PANKAJPANI PANDEY S/O BADRI PRASAD PANDEY
ARE WORKING AS A L.D.C. IN RANI DURGAWATI
UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI
RAMASHARAYA PANDEY ARE WORKING AS A
L . D . C . IN RANI DURGAWATI UNIVERSITY,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA S/O ARVIND KUMAR
M ISHR A ARE WORKING AS A L.D.C. IN RANI
DURGAWATI UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. RAJNISH KUMAR PANDEY S/O NOT KNOWN ARE
WORKING AS A L.D.C. IN RANI DURGAWATI
UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. VIPULCHANDRA TIWARI S/O R.K. TIWARI ARE
WORKING AS A L.D.C. IN RANI DURGAWATI
UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. ANIL BAHUBALI JAIN S/O R.K.JAIN ARE
WORKING AS A L.D.C. IN RANI DURGAWATI
2
UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. INDRA BARMAN D/O M.C. BARMAN ARE
WORKING AS A L.D.C. IN RANI DURGAWATI
UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. PRAVEEN DUBEY S/O B.M. DUBEY ARE WORKING
AS A L.D.C. IN RANI DURGAWATI UNIVERSITY,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. SUSHIL KUMAR KHAMPARIYA S/O SHRI
CHANDRABHUSHAN ARE WORKING AS A L.D.C.
IN RANI DURGAWATI UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
14. SHRIKANT GOUTAM S/O LAKHANLAL GOUTAM
ARE WORKING AS A L.D.C. IN RANI DURGAWATI
UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DIVYAKRISHNA BILAIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.1)
This petition coming on for final hearing at motion hearing stage this day,
the court passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein who is aggrieved
by the orders dated 08.12.2011 and 19.09.2013. By the said order dated
08.12.2011, the petitioner was intimated by the respondent no.1 that his services
has not been regularized as the typing certificate was given by him to the
respondent no.1 after the cut off date i.e. 06.10.2008. The order dated 19.09.2013
is the final order of regularization in which the petitioner's name does not figure
and, therefore, the same has also been challenged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he joined the respondent-
University as the daily wager on 17.07.1998. His date of joining is not disputed by
the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. He had moved two applications earlier
for the appointment on 26.02.1996 24.03.1998. It was only thereafter, the petitioner
was appointed on 17.07.1998. Pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court
in Uma Devi's case, a Committee was constituted which was to go into the
question of regularizing those employees after considering whether their initial
appointment were illegal or irregular.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to
the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.12596/2008 (Rajneesh Tripathi and Others Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwa
Vidhyalay and Others). In the said judgment, the learned Co-ordinate Bench in
paragraph-9 lay down the consideration for determining the eligibility criteria in the
following words. "However, it is made clear that for the purpose of determining the
eligibility criteria of completing 10 years and acquiring the requisite qualifications,
the cut off date shall be treated as 06.10.2008 and not 10.04.2006." Thereafter,
learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the first
impugned order i.e. Annexure-P/4 at page-24, whereby the petitioner was not
considered by the respondent no.1 only on the grounds that the typing certificate
which reveals that the petitioner had passed the requisite tests which is Annexure-
P/2 at page-19 which reflects that the petitioner had acquired the certificate on
23.11.1994 itself, was placed before the Committee on a date after 06.10.2008
which was the cut off date fixed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench in the
aforementioned judgment.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Committee
has wrongly appreciated the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench which only
required that the petitioner should have acquired the requisite qualification which is
a typing certificate issued to the petitioner should have been acquired before the
cut off date of 06.10.2008. He submits that the respondent no.1 has misread the
said directions to mean that the requisite certificate should have been placed before
the Committee on or before 06.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the said certificate was placed by the petitioner before the Committee on
18.10.2008.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, has not challenged or
disputed the factual aspects of the case as stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner but has reiterated the ground for disqualification from being regularized
was on account of the petitioner having given typing certificate belatedly on
18.10.2008 while the cut off date for the same is 06.10.2008.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the petition and the
documents filed therewith. In this case, the undisputed facts are that the petitioner
had moved applications for consideration to be appointed as LDC "Lower
Division Clerk" on 26.02.1996 24.03.1998. Pursuant to the second application, the
petitioner was appointed as a daily wager with the respondent department on
17.07.1998. It is also undisputed that he has been disqualified for being considered
for regularization only on the ground that he gave the certificate of typing belatedly
on 18.10.2008 instead of on a date before 06.10.2008 which was the cut off date
fixed by the High Court in the aforementioned order.
However, having gone through the paragraph-9 of the said order, it is clear
that what this Court intended was that the typing certificate should have been
acquired by the petitioner on a date before 06.10.2008. The order did not provide
that the submission of the said certificate should have been on or before
06.10.2008 . It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1
that the petitioner actually acquired the certificate on 23.11.1994. Therefore, the
petition succeeds as the petitioner had already acquired the typing certificate on a
date which was before 06.10.2008. The ground for disqualification of the petitioner
are incorrect and cannot be sustained as the same has been passed on a wrong
reading of the judgment referred to hereinabove, passed by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court.
Under the circumstances, this petition is allowed. The respondent no.1 is
requested to constitute a Committee, which shall forthwith consider the case of the
petitioner for regularization from his initial date of appointment as a daily wager on
17.07.1998.
Let this be done within a period of three months from the date of this order.
C.C. as per rules.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE
Digitally signed
rk. by RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Date: 2022.04.29 15:06:43 +05'30'
