Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paras Ram Thakre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3196 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
PARAS RAM THAKRE S/O LATE SHRI DEENDAYAL
THAKRE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GOVT P G COLLGE BALAGHAT
MP R/O VILLAGE POST BHANDERI TEHSIL BAIHAR
DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA NATH CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION MANTRALAYA VALALBH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY R ESID EN CY AREA
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI NIKHIL BHATT - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the action of
respondents in not treating the petitioner to be an eligible candidate for
appointment to the post of Registrar in terms of the provisions contained in
Madhya Pradesh State University Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules of 1983' for short), as amended vide Notifiation dated 13.12.2017,
wherein in Schedule-II, it is provided that a person to be eligible for direct
recruitment to the post of Registrar should possess a Post Graduate degree
with at least 55% marks or equivalent grade point scale and, thereafter, it is
provided that person should possess ten years'
administrative/academic/teaching experience from a recognized
institute/corporation.
2. The bone of contention is that whether the experience which is mentioned
in Schedule-II of the Rules of 1983, as amended in 2017, provides for post
qualification experience or the experience which is expected, can be pre-
qualification too.
3. Brief facts leading to the present case are that petitioner is a candidate for
the post of Registrar for which an advertisement was issued by the Madhya
Pradesh Public Service Commission on 03.11.2022.
4. Petitioner's contention is that he possesses necessary ten years
administrative experience by virtue of his earlier engagement with Indian Audits
and Accounts Department, Annx.P/4, where, he was working as Assistant
Accounts Examination Officer, which is a Class-II post from 16.08.2010 to
30.12.2019, and thereafter, has worked as Assistant Professor in Government
Jata Shankar Trivedi, PG College, Balaghat and thus, he fulfills the requirement
of the Rules, inasmuch as, there is no specific prescription of possessing post
qualification experience. It is an admitted fact that petitioner had completed his
Post Graduate degree in the year 2015 and, therefore, there being no connect
between the experience and the degree, petitioner should have been allowed to
compete.
5. Shri Manas Mani Verma, Govt. Advocate and Shri Nikhil Bhatt, learned
counsel, in their turn, submit that petitioner has no case. It is submitted that
though petitioner was provisionally allowed by the Court to participate in the
selection process, but the fact of the matter is that in Schedule-II qualification is
given and thereafter, experience is mentioned which is to be read in, so as to
mean that experience is post qualification experience as held by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and others, decided on 07.02.2014 in Writ Petition No.2210/2014, wherein
placing reliance on the judgment of P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and others Vs.
Union of India and others [(1984) 2 SCC 141], it is held :
"30.... .... .... and we do not subscribe to the view that the
period spent in preparing thesis for M.Sc.- mark not Ph.D. -
counts towards required experience. It is well settled that
experience to be of value and utility must be acquired after
the educational qualification is obtained and not while
acquiring the postgraduate qualification. ..... ...."
6. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Indian
Airlines Ltd. and others Vs. S. Gopalakrishnan [(2001) 2 SCC 362], it is
observed that :
"4. The respondent has obtained the ITI certificate in June
1994 and he had about five years of experience after obtaining
the certificate and diploma in Mechanical Engineering was
obtained in April 1996. In any event, it is clear that the
experience obtained by him falls short of the requisite
qualification. This Court in N. Suresh Nathan and another
Vs. Union of India and others [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 584], has
explained the necessity to obtain experience after obtaining the
requisite qualification."
7. Shri Chaturvedi, in his turn, places reliance on the judgment of Supreme
Court in Shailendra Dania and others Vs. S.P. Dubey and others [(2007) 5
SCC 535] and reading from paragraph 30 onward, it is submitted that ratio of
law in N. Suresh Nathan and another (supra), is in regard to the practice
which was obtaining and not in regard to the interpretation of the relevant rules.
It is submitted that in para 33, while referring to the judgment of Supreme Court
in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2001) 1 SCC
128], it is held that requirement is only degree and two years professional
experience and not the experience as degree holder.
8. In view of the said facts and also taking this Court to para 36, it is
submitted that the past practice, if any, which is in consonance with the
interpretation given by us to the rule. If we find that two views are possible after
interpreting the rule, then the rule would be interpreted keeping with the practice
followed in the department for a long time and thus, the practice practically
acquired status of rule in the department.
9. Thus, it is submitted that when it is not specifically mentioned in the
recruitment rules that the experience should be post qualification, total
experience acquired by the petitioner should be taken into consideration.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record,
it is evident that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania and others
(supra), has observed in para 32 that :
"32.....Thus, the experience so obtained in the service would
necessarily mean the experience obtained after the requisite
qualification was acquired. Thus, the decision turns on the
language of the Rule and has distinguished N. Suresh Nathan's
case (supra) on that basis."
11. In the present case, mention of experience after qualification makes it
evident that the experience is to be required post qualification and, therefore,
pre-qualification experience cannot be taken into consideration in the light of
law laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Sahu
(supra) and also the ratio of the law laid down in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and
others (supra) and Indian Airlines Ltd. and others (supra) and, thus, when
these facts are taken into consideration and there is no iota of doubt that
experience is to be counted post qualification as the basic qualification for
appointment as a Registrar, is Post Graduate degree. Therefore, the experience
obtained after attaining the minimum educational qualification will be the relevant
experience and not the experience obtained prior to that.
12. Accordingly, petition deserves to fail as petitioner admittedly does not
possesses post qualification experience.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
