Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sandhya Amrute vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 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 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 23465 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SANDHYA AMRUTE W/O SHRI SHRIRAM
AMRUTE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED S-9, PURWASHA NAGAR,
DISTRICT- BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GEETA D/O SHRI RADHELAL, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONTRACT BASIS WORK
R/O CHC KHILCHIPUR DISTRICT RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GANDHI
MEDICAL COLLEGE MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS
KOHEFIZA DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. UJMA ARSHI QURESHI D/O ABDUL LATIF
QURESHI OCCUPATION: POSTED AS STEWARD
GANDHI MEDICAL COLLEGE BHOPAL R/O
GANDHI MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS KOHEFIZA
BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ARTI SHARMA D/O RAMKARAN SHARMA
OCCUPATION: POSTED AS STEWARD GANDHI
MEDICAL COLLEGE BHOPAL R/O GANDHI
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS KOHEFIZA BHOPAL
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. COMMISSIONER MEDICAL EDUCATION
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 19-02-2024
19:26:17
2
D EPARTM EN T DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 5, SHRI SHUBHAM MACHHANI - ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2, SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ADIYA SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND SHRI AMIT MISHRA - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.4)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners' contention is that an advertisement was issued by the office
of Dean and Chief Executive Officer, Gandhi Medical College, Autonomous
Institute, Bhopal, on 07.05.2021, for filling up certain posts in non-educational
cadre. Last date to fill the application form was 14.07.2021 upto 12:00 night.
2. Petitioners and private respondents are concerned with post advertised at
Serial No.10 i.e. of Steward for which one post was under ST cadre, one under
OBC and two under unreserved category, making 4 posts available for the post
of Steward.
3. Qualification which is prescribed for the post of Steward is given in the
advertisement at Serial No.10 as B.Sc. (Home Science) with one subject of
Dietetics.
4. Petitioners' contention is that subsequently this condition of Dietetics was
changed vide Annx.P/8, by the Directorate of Medical Education vide order
dated 30.03.2022, without issuing the fresh advertisement. The order dated
30.03.2022 Annx.P/8, makes a mention that earlier qualification which was
advertised for the post of Steward was B.Sc. (Home Science) with one subject
of Dietetics and the amended educational qualification was made as B.Sc.
(Home Science) with subject of Dietetics/Food and Nutritious.
5. Petitioners' contention is that this change could not have been made from
retrospective effect and a fresh advertisement could have been issued calling for
the application so that the ambit of zone of selection would have been enlarged
and persons having the necessary qualification would have been considered for
appointment to the post of Steward. It is submitted that petitioners possess
necessary qualification in Dietetics as is evident from B.Sc.III Marksheet (Home
Science) issued by Barkatulla University, Bhopal, and they were wrongly shown
to be disqualified so to accommodate other respondents who were not having
qualification in Dietetics.
6. Learned counsel for private respondents submits that in fact petitioners
themselves were found to be ineligible on the basis of the earlier advertised
qualification and, therefore, they have no locus to file this petition after being
declared to be eligible in terms of the amended qualifications, but finding lower
place in the merit as compared to the private respondents.
7. Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned Senior Advocate, submits that Dietetics is not
a separate subject and, therefore, Annx.P/8 is only clarificatory in nature and
does not amount to change in the qualification.
8. The only issue herein is that whether the rules of the games could have
been changed retrospectively or not. The law in this behalf is well settled in the
judgment of Supreme Court in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
and another [(2008) 3 SCC 512], wherein it is held that 'Rules of Game'
cannot be changed afterwards. Thus, the clarification given by the
Commissioner Medical Education being unauthorised and could not have been
applied retrospectively, is hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, respondents are directed to scrutinize case of applicants on
the basis of the qualification which was advertised in the first place and if, some
suitable candidate is found to be available, then proceed in accordance with
law. If no suitable candidate is found to possess the qualification, as was
advertised in the first place, then let fresh advertisement be issued for the post
of Steward and after calling applications from the eligible candidates afresh
which will enlarge the scope and ambit of the advertisement as new candidates
will also be allowed to participate in fresh selection process, to be undertaken.
10. In above terms, petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
