Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raksha Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2022
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 30 th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 26933 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. RAKSHA PATEL D/O SHRI VINAY PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
OBC R/O THAKUR MOHALLA, RAISAALPUR
TAHSIL ITARSI DISTRICT NARBADAPURAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PHOOL SINGH RAJPOOT S/O SHRI BALBIR
RAJPOOT, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CATEGORY OBC UNEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE
MAJRAHADPU POST BHELSI TAHSIL
KHARGAPUR DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. KAMLESH PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI RATIRAM
PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CATEGORY SC UNEMPLOYED R/O
VILLAGE GURPARA POST BANDHNI TAHSIL
RAJNAGAR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. MAHENDRA THAKUR S/O SURAJ SINGH THAKUR,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CATEGORY EWS UNEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE
SHYAM PURA TAPPA POST HAR RAJ KHEDI
TAHSIL ASHTA DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAJ KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM VILAS, AGED ABOUT
26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CATEGORY EWS
UNEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE HATHWAS
RAHUVANSHI MOHALLA TAHSIL PIPARIYA
DISTRICT HOSHANGABDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PRAVESH RATHORE S/O SHRI PRAKASH
CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CATEGORY SC UNEMPLOYED R/O
ITWARA BAZAAR RAIKHEDI ROAD PIPARIYA
DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
2
7. OM PRAKASH S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CATEGORY SC
UNEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE MANAKHEDI POST
KOTRI TAHSIL ASHTA DISTRICT SEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. TRUPTI D/O SHRI LAKSHMA, AGED ABOUT 29
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: CATEGORY SC
UNEMPLOYED R/O ISHWAREEY KUNJ COLONY
NEAR MANKAR HOSPITAL KHANDWA BYE PASS
HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. REENA PARTE D/O SHRI ANOKHILALPARTE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CATEGORY ST UNEMPLOYED R/O H.NO. 13/1
MAIN ROAD LANGOTI WARD NO. 2 KHALWA
DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. RACHNA DEVI PATEL D/O SHRI AYODHYA
PRASAD PATEL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CATEGORY OBC UNEMPLOYED
R/O VILLAGE PANDEY PURWA CHATIBAMHOLI
TAHSIL CHANGLA DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. JYOTI BHADORIA D/O SHRI KAMAL SINGH
BHADORIA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CATEGORY EWS UNEMPLOYED
R/O NANA KUWAI PITAMPURA COLONY BINA
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. LOKESH AHIRWAR S/O SHRI TIKARAM
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CATEGORY SC UNEMPLOYED R/O
DHALAKPURWA CHOON WALI GALI VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
13. RANI BAI CHAMAR D/O SHRI RAM CHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CATEGORY SC UNEMPLOYED R/O WARD NO. 14
GADHROLI MAKSI POST SHAHJAPUR TAHSIL
SHAHJAPUR DISTRICT SHAHJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
14. MAHENDRA SINGH SISODIYA S/O SHRI UDAY
SINGH SISODIYA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CATEGORY UR UNEMPLOYED R/O
VILLAGE AND POST KHAMLA TAHSIL KALA
PIPAL DISTRICT SHAHJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
15. RITU MANJHI D/O SHRI RAM SUNIRAN MANJHI,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
3
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CATEGORY ST UNEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE AND
P.O. GADHA 138 P.S. AND TAHSIL JAWA DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI N.S. RUPRAH, ADVOCATE WITH SHRI NAVTEJ SINGH RUPRAH,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF M.P
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EMPLOYEES SELECTION BOARD BHOPAL (OLD
NAME PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD)
THROUGH CHAIRMAN CHAYAN BHAWAN MAIN
ROAD NO. 1 CHINAR PARK EAST BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI PRASHANT SINGH, LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SHRI
AMIT SEHT AND SHRI RAHUL DIWAKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, heard finally.
The petitioners has filed this petition while praying for the following
reliefs:
i) To quash impugned final result (Annexure-P/1
Colly) of all the petitioners which wrongly declares them
FAIL;
ii) To direct to declare that lall the petitioners have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
passed the M.P. Police Constable Recruitment Test and
they deserve to tbe appointed as Constables of respective
categories;
iii) To pass such other orders as it may deem fit
under the circumstances of the case.
As averred in the memorandum of the writ petition, pursuant to a
notification dated 25.11.2020 issued by Professional Examination Board for
filling up 4,000 vacancies of constable in Police Department, the petitioners
herein participated in the same.
The Rule Book which was floated by the respondents, contained the
details of submission of form, verification thereof, holding of selection process
etc. In point No.11 of the Rule Book, it was mentioned that the live registration
of a candidate with employment exchange was compulsory. The similar Clause
was there in Rule 2.1 (iv) of the Rule Book. All the petitioners had
employment exchange cards but the validity of the cards of the rest of the
petitioners expired except petitioner no.13 during the period of outbreak of
Covid-19 and, therefore, the employment exchange cards could not be
renewed. The petitioners then submitted their online application forms and also
submitted the particulars of all testimonials. On the basis of the same admit
cards were issued to the petitioners. The petitioners participated in the process
of written test which were conducted on different dates in January, 2022. All the
petitioners cleared the written test. Thereafter, the petitioners received schedule
of Physical Proficiency Test which was the second stage of selection process
and before the second stage of selection process, the petitioners got their
employment exchange cards renewed. The renewed employment exchange
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
cards were sent by the petitioners to the respondents via email. The call letters
for Physical Proficiency Test were issued to the petitioners and in pursuance of
which, the petitioners appeared in Physical Proficiency Test and cleared the
same. As the petitioners had cleared the Physical Proficiency Test, the
petitioners were then to be placed in the select list in order of merit but, the
respondents issued results of the written examination which are contained in
Annexure-P/1, collectively in which, all the petitioners were shown as "Fail" in
GD PPT Status.
Assailing the same, this petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, the
petitioners intimated the respondents that on account of outbreak of Covid-19,
the employment exchange cards of the petitioners could not be renewed and the
said fact was in the notice of the respondents and, therefore, the petitioners
were allowed to participate in the process of Physical Proficiency Test. It is
contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners possessed all
requisite eligibility criteria for being considered for selection against the post of
constable and merely the employment exchange cards could not be renewed on
account of outbreak of Covid-19, the candidature of the petitioners could not
have been rejected by the respondents.
It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioners that even the
Apex Court in the case of IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF
LIMITATION IN MA NO.21/2022 IN MA No.665/2021 IN SMW (C)
NO.3/2020 while taking cognizance of the pandemic, extended the period of
limitation from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 and the said benefit of relaxation was
extended by the Apex Court, despite the specific limitation provided under the
different statutes. It is also contended by the counsel that the Apex Court in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
case of Kishore K. Pati vs. District Inspector of Schools Midnapore and
Others [2000 (9) SCC 405] has already considered the similar issue and the
Apex Court while considering the fact that the name of the petitioners therein
were not sponsored by the employment exchange, their selection could not
have been interfered by the employer. Thus, submits that in the present case as
well the petitioners having fulfilled all the eligibility criteria merely on account of
the expired employment exchange cards could not have been deprived of
selection. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioners that
Annexure-P/1 reflect that the present petitioners are being shown as fail in
Physical Proficiency Test whereas, the entire return filed by the respondents
does not deal with the Annexure-P/1. It is contended by the counsel for the
petitioners that there is a specific stand taken by the respondents in paragraph
no.5 of the return that the present petitioners except petitioner no.13, were not
in possession of their alive employment exchange cards and despite the said
factual situation, the petitioners knowingly entered incorrect information in the
online application forms and while suppressing the said important aspect of the
matter, secured participation in the process of Physical Proficiency Test. It is
contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondents stand that the
petitioners had not approached this Court with clean hands is misconceived
inasmuch as, the respondents were within the knowledge of the fact that the
employment exchange cards could not be renewed on account of outbreak of
Covid-19. Thus, submits that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
Per contra, learned Advocate General submits that in the present case,
the petitioners are guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The petitioners
ought to have disclosed the true facts in their application forms. The petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
while submitting online application forms which have been filed with the return
as Annexure-R/2, stated that they are in possession of live employment
exchange cards and they also submitted the registration number of such
employment exchange cards and also the date of registration but, it was not
disclosed by any of the petitioners that their employment exchange cards had
already expired and were no more alive. The learned Advocate General further
submits that the declaration which was required to be made by each candidate
while submitting the online application forms, fastened a liability upon each
candidate that if any information is found to be false at any stage, their
candidature will be liable to be cancelled. Therefore, submits that even upon
letting the petitioners to participate in the Physical Proficiency Test, such
participation could not have conferred any immunity to the petitioners from
submission of the valid and alive employment exchange cards. Learned counsel
submits that the suppression in the application form itself made the petitioners
ineligible to participate in the process. It is contended by the Advocate General
that the petitioners being literate candidates were well aware about their conduct
and also the consequences inasmuch as, the condition of submission of live
registration with employment exchange was a mandatory condition in terms of
Clause-11 of Annexure-P/4 and the said condition was also there in the Rule
Book at Clause No.1.4.5. Therefore, the petitioners with open eyes, submitted
the online application form and willfully suppressed the fact that they did not
possess the alive registration with employment exchange and their employment
exchange cards had already expired. It is further contended by learned
Advocate General that paragraph 5.22 of the writ petition specifically reveals
that except petitioner no.13, all the other petitioners got their employment
exchange registration renewed subsequently after the submission of online
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
application form and admittedly on the cut off date, the petitioners were not
fulfilling the eligibility criteria and accordingly, the present petition being grossly
misconceived deserves to be dismissed. Learned Advocate General has placed
reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the cases of Central Airmen
Selection Board and Another vs. Surender Kumar Das [2003 (1) SCC 152],
Ashok Kumar and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others [2017 (4) SCC
357] and Jammu Kashmir Public Service Commission vs. Farhat Rasool
and Others [1995 Supp (4) SCC 621].
No other point is pressed by the parties.
Heard the rival submissions and perused the record.
In the present case, the petitioners have participated in the process on the
basis of advertisement issued by the respondents. As per the program, the
online application forms were to be submitted from 08.01.2021 till 22.01.2021.
The last date of carrying out corrections in the online application forms was
27.01.2021. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the cut off date in the present
case was 27.01.2021 by which, the candidates were extended liberty to carry
out corrections in their on line application forms. The Rule Book contained in
Annexure-P/4 contained Clause-11 which is reproduced herein:-
mijksDr lHkh inks ds fy, vH;fFkZ;ksa dk e/;izns'k jkT; ds
jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa thfor iath;u gskuk vfuok;Z gksxk A
The similar Clause 1.4.5 was also mentioned in the Rule Book which is
also reproduced herein:-
vH;fFkZ;ksa dk e/;izns'k jkT; ds jkstxkj dk;kZy; eas thfor
iath;u gksuk vfuok;Z gksxk A
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
The entire process was to be conducted in two different stages. In first
stage, the candidates were required to participate in the written examination and,
thereafter, their testimonial and all original documents were to be verified and
upon verification of such documents, the candidates were to be permitted to
appear in the Physical Proficiency Test. The petitioners herein have been
permitted in Physical Proficiency Test is an undisputed fact and after their
participation as per the respondents, it was found that their employment
exchange cards were not alive at the time of submission of application form.
Therefore, in the present case, the question which arise for consideration is to
the effect that as to whether on the cut off date, the petitioners were fulfilling the
eligibility criteria or not?
A perusal of the application forms submitted by the petitioners through
online mode reflects that there was a particular row in the application form and
in which there was a query, to which the candidate was required to respond.
The query was to the effect that the candidates should have a live registration
with Employment Exchange. The petitioners, in response to the said, submitted
in an application form "Yes". Meaning thereby, the petitioners submitted an
incorrect information while submitting their online application form. All the
petitioners except petitioner no.13 were well aware that they were not having
their live registration with the Employment Exchange, therefore, undisputedly an
incorrect information has been submitted by the petitioners in the application
form. The such conduct of the petitioners was subjected to scrutinize by the
respondents, in terms of Clause 1.23 of the Rule Book and the respondents
already had made it clear to the candidates that, if any information submitted by
them in the application form is found to be incorrect, their candidature would be
liable to be rejected at any stage. The undertaking furnished by the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
petitioners while submitting the online application form is also reproduced
herein:-
"I hereby declare that all statements made in this
application are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief. If any information being found false at any stage or
not satisfying the eligibility criteria according to the
requirements, my candidature is liable to be cancelled."
The aforesaid undertaking, which was submitted by the petitioners,
makes it palpably clear that the present petitioners were placed on notice at the
time of submission of application form itself that if any information submitted
by them while submitting online application form is found to be incorrect, their
candidature would be liable to be rejected.
The Apex Court in the case of Central Airmen (supra) held in
paragraph 7 as under:-
"The question, therefore, is whether in a case of this
nature the principle of promissory estoppel should be
invoked. It is well known that the principle of promissory
estoppel is based on equitable principles. A person who
has himself misled the authority by making a fake
statement, cannot invoke this principle, if his
misrepresentation misled the authority into taking a
decision which on discovery of the misrepresentation is
sought to be cancelled. The High Court has proceeded on
the basis that the petitioner had not made any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
misrepresentation in his application to the effect that he
had passed the Intermediate examination. As we have
found above, this finding of the High Court is erroneous,
contrary to record and therefore must be set aside. In his
application, the respondent had claimed that he had
passed the Secondary examination as well as the Higher
Secondary +2 examination, and it is clear from the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his
candidature was considered on the basis that he had
passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, as in that
case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter of
age. However, the mark sheet annexed to the application
disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject
Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application, that
he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, was
factually incorrect and a clear misrepresentation. In these
circumstances we are satisfied that the respondent could
not be permitted to invoke the principle of promissory
estoppel, and the High Court was clearly erred in law in
invoking the said principle in the facts of this case. The
judgement and order of the High Court therefore cannot
be sustained."
T he Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh vs. Union of India
reported in [2016 (8) SCC 471] held in paragraph nos.32, 33, 38.2 and 38.11
as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
"32. No doubt about it that once verification form
requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is
duty bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of
material facts or submitting false information, may by itself
lead to termination of his services or cancellation of
candidature in an appropriate case......
33. The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a
transaction and in case employment has been obtained on
the basis of forged documents, as observed in M.
Bhaskaran case (supra), it has also been observed in the
reference order that if an appointment was procured
fraudulently, the incumbent may be terminated without
holding any inquiry, however we add a rider that in case
employee is confirmed, holding a civil post and has
protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry has to be held
before terminating the services. The case of obtaining
appointment on the basis of forged documents has the
effect on very eligibility of incumbent for the job in
question, however, verification of antecedents is different
aspect as to his fitness otherwise for the post in question.
The fraudulently obtained appointment orders are voidable
at the option of employer, however, question has to be
determined in the light of the discussion made in this order
on impact of suppression or submission of false
information.
38.2 While passing order of termination of services
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
or cancellation of candidature for giving false information,
the employer may take notice of special circumstances of
the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.11 Before a person is held guilty of suppressio
veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be
attributable to him."
If the case of the petitioners is examined on the basis of law laid down by
the Apex Court in the cases of Central Airmen (supra) and Avatar Singh
(supra), it would reveal that in the present case as well, all the petitioners except
petitioner no.13 made incorrect statement while submitting the online application
form and on the basis of such incorrect statement, the petitioners were later on
permitted to participate in Physical Proficiency Test. Before participation in
physical proficiency test, the respondents were required to verify all the
documents as well as testimonials of the candidates in terms of Clause 1.16.1 of
the Rule Book but, the list of documents which is detailed in Clause 1.16.1,
does not include the alive registration with Employment Exchange. Therefore, it
can be safely inferred that even at the time of verification of testimonials and
documents in terms of Clause 1.16.1, the respondents were not in the
knowledge of the fact that the details of Employment Exchange Cards
submitted in online application form, were pertaining to expired registration with
Employment Exchange. This fact was later on noticed by the respondents and
thus, in the present case undoubtedly except petitioner no.13, all the petitioners
have submitted incorrect information in their application forms and are guilty of
suppression the fact that they did not possess the alive Employment Exchange
cards.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
The judgment as relied upon by the petitioners in Kishore K. Pati (supra)
is of no assistance to the petitioners, as is distinguishable on facts. Nor the
petitioners claim any exemption on the strength of the order of Apex Court IN
RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION IN MA
NO.21/2022 IN MA No.665/2021 IN SMW (C) NO.3/2020 as the Apex
Court on account of pandemic as special case provided relaxation for the
purposes of limitation under the different statutes.
In view of the aforesaid, except petitioner no.13, the writ petition at the
behest of rest of the petitioners stands dismissed.
So far as, petitioner no.13 is concerned as her registration certificate with
Employment Exchange was alive and valid on the date of submission of
application form. The respondents are directed to consider the case of
petitioner No 13 afresh, for selection against the post of Constable.
The exercise in respect of petitioner No. 13 shall be carried out and
completed within a period of 60 days from today while taking into consideration
her valid and alive employment registration which is at page no.117 of the
petition.
Accordingly, the interim order dated 24.11.2022 stands vacated.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
mn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:00:47 PM
