Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Sumit K Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1979 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DR. SUMIT K RAWAT S/O SURESH CHANDRA RAWAT,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DOCTOR R/O
9/22, SADAR BAZAAR, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI K.C.GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ROHAN
HARNE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MEDICAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS
PR ESID EN T POCKET 14 SECTOR 8 DWARKA
PHASE I NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER S AGAR DIVISION
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE DEAN AND THE CEO BUNDELKHAND
MEDICAL COLLEGE SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DR. NEELU JAIN W/O DR. NITIN JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O PREMVIHAR COLONY GALI
NO. 3 PREMNAGAR SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DR. GAL SINGH PATEL S/O BHEEMJI PATEL
OCCUPATION: DEAN AND CEO BUNDELKHAND
MEDICAL COLLEGE SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:09:17 PM
2
7. DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN S/O PURAN CHAND
JAIN OCCUPATION: SCRUTINEE COMMITTEE
MEMBER BUNDELKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. DR. ANJU JHA D/O UMESH THAKUR
OCCUPATION: SCRUTINEE COMMITTEE
MEMBER BUNDELKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI B.D.SINGH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1 AND SHRI ROHIT JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.25638 of 2018, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed against the post of
Assistant Professor, (Micro Biology) Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar. An
advertisement was issued by the Medical College on 24.02.2018 inviting
applications for appointment against the post of Associate Professor. The
petitioner submitted his application along with relevant documents and also the
respondent No.5. It his case that the respondent No.5 is not fulfilling the criteria
for appointment to the post in question as she is not having four years
experience certificate against the post of Assistant Professor. Neither she has
submitted no objection certificate from her employer. She was an employee of
Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa yet her name was placed in the merit list
whereas the petitioner was placed in the waiting list. Assailing the select list
dated 15.03.2018, the writ petition was filed.
3. The learned Writ Court took note of the fact and held that the respondent
No.5 is having experience of four years and nine months. However, the
experience certificate and no objection certificate were not produced by her
along with the application at the time of submission of application but at a later
stage, prior to issuance of an appointment order. Therefore, considering the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda
Vs. Chairman, JEE and others reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779, the writ
petition was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that in terms of the
advertisement there was a specific condition prescribing the eligibility criteria.
According to the same, the applicant should have all the requisite qualification
on the date of filling of application and should file all the relevant documents
along with an application at the time of applying for the post in question. The
respondent No.5 admittedly has submitted the documents after she has already
applied. Therefore, the aforesaid documents could not have been taken into
consideration by the authorities.
5. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that the respondent No.5 was not
having the requisite qualification. It is his case that in terms of the advertisement
the documents were required to be filed along with the application at the time of
applying for the post in question. It was argued that the respondent No.5 is not
having the experience of four years working as Assistant Professor but there is
no such material placed on record to substantiate his arguments. On the basis
of the material placed on record which was considered by the learned Writ
Court shows that the respondent No.5 was having an experience of four years
and nine months. The same cannot be disputed by the counsel appearing for the
appellant in absence of any document. Even otherwise, in terms of the settled
proposition of law that if a candidate is in possession of the required
qualification as on the cut off date but he could not produce the documents, he
will be entitled for relaxation as far as submission of certificate are concerned.
The aforesaid was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dolly Chhanda (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under
:-
"7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study
or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the
last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or
in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express
provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard
i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by
the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the
necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to
avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary
certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature
of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of
marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending
upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter
of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid
principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction
of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily
result in rejection of candidature."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant could neither dispute the
settled proposition of law nor is in position to dispute the fact that the
respondent No.5 is having the required qualification for the post in question.
Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the appellant. The
learned Writ Court has rightly considered all the aspects of the matter and
dismissed the writ petition. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM
