Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shambhu Nath Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 21 st OF MARCH, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 5890 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHAMBHU NATH SINGH S/O LATE RAMA SINGH, AGED ABOUT
57 YEARS, WORKING AS SR. STENOGRAPHER COMMERCIAL
CONVENTIONAL ENERGY MP POWER MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.
SHAKTI BHAWAN BLOCK NO. 11 GROUND FLOOR JABALPUR &
R/o 25/3 MANAVLOK COLONY BEHIND RATAN NAGAR
JABALPUR
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKASH CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MP POWER MANAGEMENT
CO. LTD. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. POORV KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAMPUR,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. MADHYA KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD. GOVINDPURA, NISTHA
PARISAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD. GPO COMPOUND,
POLOGROUND, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MP POWER GENERATING CO.
L I M I T E D SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAMPUR, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. POWER TRANSMISSION
CO. LIMITED SHAKTI BHAWAN, JABALPUR (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
PRADESH)
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 3/23/2023
1:56:38 PM
2
8. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND A) MP POWER
GENERATING CO. LTD. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI L.A.S.BAGHEL - DY.G.A.)
(SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE - FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
challenging the notification dated 21/02/2023 (Annexure-P-6), whereby respondents had
issued vacancy circular for filling up the post of Law Officer(Trainee) including various
other posts on permanent basis.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that requisite qualification/eligibility of law
officer (Trainee) is as under:-
"The candidate should be a Law Graduate from UGC
approved University/Institute with minimum 60% marks (for
equivalent CGPA) for UR/OBC Category or 55% marks (or
equivalent CGPA) for employees working in successor
companies of MPSEB or 50% marks (for equivalent CGPA)
for SC/ST/PWD/EWS category of M.P Domicile.
The candidates should have valid CLAT PG Score Card as on
last date of submission of application i.e 16/03/2023."
Shri Choudhary submits that fixing a minimum requisite marks i.e 55% in LLB
examination is not justified whereas in other important exams the criteria and minimum
educational qualification is 50% marks. He submits that such a criteria be struck-down
and instead of 55% it should be reduced to 50% or should be removed by allowing every
candidates who have LLB degree. To substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance
upon a decision passed by Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh and
others Vs. Dr.Anupam Gupta , reported in AIR 1992 SC 932, in which the Supreme
Court has not approved the condition of fixing minimum 50% marks as eligibility criteria
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 3/23/2023
1:56:38 PM
for giving admission in the entrance examination of the post graduate courses saying that
to maintain excellence the course have to be commenced on schedule and to be
completed within the schedule, so that the students would have full opportunity to study
full course to meet their excellence and come at par excellence. The Supreme Court has
observed that the criteria if consistent with the previous criteria then it appears to be
genuine otherwise not.
Shri Choudhary submits that there should be an open competition allowing
everybody to participate in the selection especially the departmental candidates and fixing
criteria acquiring minimum qualification of 55% marks in LLB is not justified and
reasonable and respondents should adopt the pragmatic approach so as to allow
everybody who have degree of LLB.
In contrast the stand of counsel appearing for respondent no.6 is that the
respondents have issued a corrigendum removing the condition of having valid CLAT
PG score card. He further submits that minimum requisite qualification i.e 55% in LLB
degree is not unreasonable and unjustified and it is a complete prerogative of the
employer. He submits that High Court in exercise of judicial review cannot direct the
respondents to modify the requisite qualification. In support of his submission, he has
placed reliance upon a decision reported in (Maharashtra Public Service Commission
Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others) (2019) 6 SCC 362, and also in (P.U.Joshi
and others Vs. Accontant General, Ahamdabad and others) reported in (2003) 2
SCC 632 .
Considering the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and the view taken therein
on which Shri Nair has placed strong reliance, I am of the opinion that the prescribed
qualification for the post of Law Officer (Trainee) cannot be said to be unreasonable
because Supreme Court has also observed that scope of judicial review is limited in
respect of interfering in the essential qualification prescribed for a particular post. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 3/23/2023
1:56:38 PM
the prerogative of the employer to decide the same considering needs and nature of
work. In my opinion, there is nothing arbitrary and unreasonable in the qualification
prescribed, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere and exercise the power of judicial
review interfering in the prescribed qualification for which petitioner has raised grievance.
The petition is, therefore, without any substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
sushma
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 3/23/2023
1:56:38 PM
