Shivcharan Prajapati vs The State Of M.P. And Ors.
2023 Latest Caselaw 56 MP

                                                                        1
                                        IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                           ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2023
                                                          WRIT PETITION No. 4413 of 2003

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       SHIVCHARAN PRAJAPATI, S/O SHRI RAMKRIPAL
                                       PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
                                       MADHAVGANJ TEHSIL AJAYGARH, DISTRICT, PANNA,
                                       M.P.

                                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
                                       (NONE )

                                       AND
                                       1.    THE STATE OFMADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS
                                             SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY,
                                             WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                             MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL, M.P.

                                       2.    D I R ECTOR , PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY
                                             WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE HEALTH
                                             SERVICES, SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.

                                       3.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                             COLLECTOR, COLLECTOR PANNA, M.P.

                                       4.    CHIEF MEDICAL AND              HEALTH   OFFICER,
                                             DISTRICT PANNA M.P.

                                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                                       (NONE )

                                             This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
                                       following:
                                                                         ORDER

Signature Not Verified SAN Nobody had appeared for the petitioner on 14.11.2022 also. Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2023.01.03 19:22:05 IST None for the State and Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer submits

that Government Advocate whom file is allotted is not available.

Petitioner is aggrieved of order, Annexure P-1 passed by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Panna whereby petitioner who was appointed as Male Health Worker, his appointment was cancelled on the ground that petitioner had sought appointment under the category of Scheduled Caste whereas on the scrutiny it was found that petitioner does not fall in the category of Scheduled Caste, therefore, his selection for training was cancelled and it was directed that if any scholarship was paid to the petitioner same may be recovered.

Though nobody is appearing for the petitioner but petitioner has not challenged aspect of inappropriate caste certificate. In the pleading, it is

mentioned that caste certificate as contained in Annexure A-6 is a valid caste certificate.

Perusal of Annexure A-6 reveals that it was issued by the Tehsildar Ajaygarh, District Panna on 04.11.1996-97. There was amendment in earlier circular of the year 1996 as mentioned in the case of Miss Dheeraj Batham and others Vs. State of MP Public Service Commission and others decided on 14-2-2019 in W.P. No. 754 of 2006(s) , Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that circular was issued on 01.08.1996 that the caste certificate shall be issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Deputy Collector/Additional Collector/Collector and the circular was issued in compliance of decision given by the Supreme Court. Since the recruitment took place in the year 2003, therefore, the circular dated 1st August, 1996 was in force and it cannot be said that the respondents have given retrospective effect to the circular dated 1st August, 1996. It is further held that as the petitioner Signature Not Verified SAN

failed to submit the caste certificate issued by the competent authority, Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2023.01.03 19:22:05 IST

therefore, their candidature was rejected.

When ratio of this judgment is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent that impugned order dated 17.01.2003 reveals that selection of the petitioner was made vide order dated 09.10.2001. Thus, in light of the decision of this High Court in Miss. Dheeraj Batham (supra) petitioner had failed to produced a valid caste certificate issued by the competent authority which was Sub Divisional Magistrate and not the Tahsildar, therefore, the findings recorded by the CMHO that petitioner was not having a valid caste certificate so to claim appointment under the Scheduled Caste category cannot be faulted with to cause indulgence. Petition being bereft of merit, fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2023.01.03 19:22:05 IST