Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shivendra Singh Parihar on 29 March, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
R.P. No817 /2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
R.P. No.817 OF 2021
Between:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
PRINCIPAL SECTETARY DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY B.D. SINGH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHIVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR S/O SHRI
RAJENDRA SINGH , AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CONTRACT TEACHER GOVT
MAHAKAUSHAL ARTS AND COMMERCE
JABALPUR DISTT. JABALPUR MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DHARAMVEER YADAV S/O SHRI GIRIRAJ
YADAV , AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
TEMPORARY TEACHER HCGBS SEWAKUTIR,
KINGSWAY, CAMP, DELHI, R/O NEAR NEW
WATER TANK, SUBHASH NAGAR, MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJBHAN SINGH S/O SHRI SHIVCHARAN
SINGH , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GUEST TEACHER GOVT. MEDIUM SCHOOL,
KYMORE, R/O Q.NO. LT204, TANK LINE
CHAMAN, CHAWRAHA, ACC COLONY (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. JAIN KUMAR PANCHESHWAR S/O SHRI C.L.
PANCHESHWAR , AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GUEST TEACHER GOVT.
COLLEGE CHHAPARA, DIST. SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2
R.P. No817 /2021
5. GANPATI SINGH RATHORE S/O SHRI
BRINDAWAN SINGH RATHORE , AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GUEST
TEACHER CWSN HOSTEL. STATION ROAD,
BEHIND JUVENILE COURT, DIST.
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BHAVANA SINGH BHADORIA S/O H.P. SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AG
III LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. M.P. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION
THROUGH CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY
RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.K. RUNGTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI AYUSH JAIN,
SHRI ADITYA SANGHI, SHRI AKASH CHOUDHURY, SHRI ADITYA
NARAYAN SHUKLA AND SHRI ADITYA SHARMA, ADVOCATES)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 08.03.2022
Passed on : 29.03.2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per : Sheel Nagu, J.:
ORDER
This instant petition seeks review of final order dated 29.04.2020 passed
in WP No.19393/2019 and other connected matters by Coordinate Bench of this
Court disposing of the petition in question with following directions:
"In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is elucidated
that the quota for PH has to be computed on the basis of
sanctioned strength and not on the basis of vacancies notified
alone. In other works, the PH quota shall be counted on the
basis of the posts of the cadre already filled and the vacancies
notified. The computation of PH quota in the revised
advertisement dated 19.08.2019 is, thus, erroneous. The
respondents are directed to redraw the list of PH candidates
after revising the quota by computing the posts on the basis of
total vacancies in the cadre strength of the cadre and thereafter
to proceed for appointment in accordance with law
R.P. No817 /2021
expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of the copy of the order passed today
30. Before concluding, we place on record the appreciation
of erudite submissions advanced by Shri S.K. Rungta, learned
senior counsel and his associates, who have ably assisted us in
delivering the judgment. We profoundly value the assistance
rendered by the learned senior counsel in the right earnest.
31. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are
disposed of in the manner indicated above."
2. Learned Government Advocate for petitioner/State Shri B.D. Singh and
learned senior counsel Shri S.K. Rugta alongwith Shri Ayush Jain, Aditya Sanghi,
Akash Choudhury, Aditya Narayan Shukla and Aditya Sharma, Advocates are heard on
the question of admission so also on final disposal.
3. Learned senior counsel Shri Rungta has raised a singular issue to point out the
error apparent on the face of record that the order under review by holding that
computation of vacancies reserved for persons who are differently challenged is to be
made on the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and not on the basis of the
vacancies advertised, runs contrary to the law laid down by Apex Court in (2013) 10
SCC 772 (Union of India and another vs. National Federation of the Blind and
others) and so also statutory provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and The Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
4. After hearing learned Government Advocate for petitioner/State and learned
counsel for respondents, this Court is of the considered view that grounds raised in the
present petition have been considered in the order under review which is evident from
the discussion contained in paragraphs 22 to 29 of the order under review. Para 27 is
the conclusion recorded after a detailed discussion on the question as to whether
computation of reservation for physically disabled persons is to be based on the
available vacancies at the time of advertisement or on the total cadre strength. For
ready reference and convenience, para 27 of the order under reference is reproduced
hereinbelow:
"27. From the aforesaid, it is vivid that the State was duty-bound
to compute the reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities
against the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and not
on the basis of the vacancies advertised."
R.P. No817 /2021
5. Therefore, once this Court has rendered a finding after detailed discussion on the
question that is being raised in this review petition, the order under review does not
suffer from any palpable error. It may be an erroneous order which can very well be
challenged in the higher forum and not before this Court in a review petition.
6. It is well settled that a wrong view or an erroneous judgment/order cannot be
successfully challenged by invoking review jurisdiction unless the error pointed out is
apparent on the face of the record.
7. In absence of any palpable error which is visible at first glance, this Court
declines interference. Accordingly, review petition stands dismissed. No cost.
(SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE JUDGE
YS
Digitally signed by YOGESH
KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA
Date: 2022.03.29 17:53:22 +05'30'
