Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailesh Deewan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 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 3 rd OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3962 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SHAILESH DEEWAN S/O LATE SHRI KARAN DIWAN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 10 -A HIG DHANWANTRI
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAIDEEP SIRPURKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, INDORE ARERA INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DR. PRAMOD KUMAR MEHRA S/O NOT MENTION
R/O HIG JUNIOR 37, VINDHYA VIHAR COLONY,
PADRA, REWA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DR. DINESH KUMAR AHIRWAR S/O NOT
MENTION OCCUPATION: AGE MAJOR R/O PLOT
NO. 37, PANCHAVATI COLONY, PHASE II BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI ATUL DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI ADITYA PACHORI - ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NOS.3&4 BY SHRI AMARESHWAR PATHAK - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the fact that
after participating in the written examination for the post of Ayush Officer for
which Advertisement Annexure P/3 was issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public
Service Commission, his candidature was cancelled on the ground that he did
not possess five years' experience as mentioned in the said advertisement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that advertisement was issued
on 31.3.2015. The last date for submission of application was 23.5.2015, which
was subsequently extended till 9.6.2015 and the petitioner had submission his
application during this extended period upto 9.6.2015. The dates were thereafter
extended from time to time with regard to document verification etc and in the
meantime, the petitioner had attained necessary experience, therefore, he could
not have been disqualified.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the experience is
to be seen on the last date for filing the application and not on any subsequent
date.
The law is well settled in Rakesh Kumar Sharma versus State (NCT
of Delhi) & Others (2013) 11 SCC 58 wherein it is held by the Apex Court
that eligibility condition should be examined as on the last date for receipt of
application. A candidate fulfilling the requisite qualification has a right to be
considered for appointment. In case the appellant did not possess requisite
qualification on the last date of submission of application though he acquired it
subsequently i.e. his results were declared after last date of receipt of
application, the result of examination does not relate back to the date of
examination. The candidate acquired the qualification only on the date of
declaration of result and, therefore, the impugned judgment finding that since
the appellant did not possess the requisite eligibility on prescribed date and
hence was ineligible for appointment, does not call for interference.
When the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar
Sharma versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Others (supra) is examined in the
aforesaid perspective then it is an admitted position that the petitioner had not
attained the requisite experience on the last date of submission of application
i.e.9.6.2015 (extended date), therefore, there being no illegality in rejection of his
candidature for want of fulfillment of mandatory advertisement condition. There
is no illegality in the said decision calling for interference in this writ petition in
the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Others (supra).
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
