Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Ritu Yadav ( Keshar) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 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 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12572 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SMT RITU YADAV ( KESHAR) W/O RAJKUMAR, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KOSMI DIST-
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI PARITOSH TRIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
PANCHAYAT AVAM RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER JABALPUR
DIVISION JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR BALAGHAT DISTRICT BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
BALAGHAT DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT KOSMI DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PAWAN KUMAR S/O TOTARAM GONDANE KOSMI
DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI T.K. KHATKA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
(SHRI PRANAY GUPTA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 22-02-2024
19:26:54
2
ORDER
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner is referring to
Annexure P-3. When Annexure P-3 is clicked, then it is informed that "an error
occurred while loading the document. Try reloading the page". When command
is given to reload the page, then the screen becomes blank and the command is
not obeyed.
When the Data Entry Operator is asked to assist the Court, then he
informs that PDF of Annexure P-3 has not been prepared.
This is a serious lapse on the part of the I.T. Section of the High Court in
not loading the documents after scanning them properly frustrating the object of
E-hearing and a Paperless Court.
Action be taken against the delinquent and action taken report be
submitted within seven days by the Registrar I.T.
In view of the fact that there is no support from the I.T. Section of the
High Court in this matter, physical file is perused.
Heard on admission.
This petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 01.05.2015,
Annexure P-7, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur
whereby learned Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur has allowed the appeal
filed by one Shri Pawan Kumar Gondane S/o Totaram Gondane and held that
on the date of the application since Pawan Kumar Gondane fulfilled the
requirement of prescribed minimum age of 18 years, and on the examination of
the advertisement where date of advertisement is 13.08.2007 and the last date to
fill the application was 20.08.2007, there is no mention of the fact that from
where this cut-off date of 31.07.2007 was inserted, and has held that the age
should be on the date of the advertisement or on the date of the application,
relief is sought to quash the order dated 01.05.2015 and direct the respondents
to continue the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi of Village Kosmi,
District Balaghat.
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on
a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in case of Ashish Singh
Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2011(2) MPLJ 324 , reading para 9 of the
said judgment it is pointed out that Hon'ble Coordinate Bench has referred to
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shankar K. Mandal and Others
Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2003) 9 SCC 519 and after relying upon the
earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma
Vs. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 ; Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262; and, Jasbir Rani Vs. State of Punjab (2002) 1
SCC 124, it is held that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility
requirement imposed must be determined for seeking public appointment is the
date appointed in the relevant recruitment Rules. Thereafter, it is stated that if no
cut-off date is appointed by the Rules, then such dates shall be appointed for
the purpose in the advertisement issued calling for applications. Finally, it is laid
down by the Supreme Court that if no such date is appointed either in the
recruitment Rules or in the advertisement, then the eligibility criteria shall be
applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were
to be received by the competent authority.
Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, Shri Paritosh Trivedi submits
that since in the advertisement, Annexure P-1, cut-off date of 31st July is given,
therefore, private respondent being short of five days of that age on the cut-off
date, he is not entitled to be given appointment.
Shri T.K. Khatka, learned Panel Lawyer for the State supports the case
of the petitioner and submits that case of the petitioner is covered with the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Ashish Singh (supra).
Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the private respondent No.7, in his
turn, submits that when the Panchayat Karmi Yojna does not contain any
stipulation in regard to the cut-off date and that Scheme is available on record
as Annexure P-4 dated 13.08.2007 and submits that prescription of cut-off date
on 31st July being contrary to the Scheme is not acceptable and is violative of
the principles of natural justice.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that the Scheme floated by the State Government dated
3.08.2007 provides that in M.P. Panchayat Karmis are to be appointed in all the
Gram Panchayats. This appointment is to be made in terms of Panchyat Karmi
Yojna for which directions were issued in the year 1995. For appointment of a
Panchayat Karmi following conditions were prescribed, namely, a candidate
should pass 10th of High School Certificate Examination under 10 2 Scheme,
his minimum age should be 18 years and then apart from these two conditions
concerned Gram Panchayat can add other conditions of eligibility. Then it is
provided that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBC and
Women will be given priority and such candidate who, as far as possible, is
local, will be given priority. Gram Panchayat is also required to see that the
candidate should have sufficient time at his disposal to perform the work.
Thereafter, this circular provides that in the Gram Panchayats where post of
Panchayat Karmi is still vacant, then the appointment of Panchayat Karmi will
be made from amongst the candidates who have made an application after
examining their minimum qualification on the basis of the merit list and the merit
list will be followed in all the conditions.
When this aspect is examined, then it is evident that as per the merit list
petitioner had secured only 76 percent marks whereas private respondent
Pawan Kumar Gondane had secured 78.08 percent marks, he is more
meritorious than the petitioner. In absence of there being any justification for
prescribing the cut-off date as 31st July specially when advertisement was
issued on 13.08.2007 and there being no such stipulation in the Panchayat
Karmi.
Thus, when the judgment of Supreme Court is taken into consideration
when there is no prescription of cut-off date in the Scheme, then prescription of
such cut-off date in the advertisement dehors the Scheme cannot be given a seal
of approval. Thus, by implication the cut-off date will be the date for last date
for filing the application forms and when examined on this touch stone then on
the last date of filing of the application forms private respondent was over the
age of 18 years and, therefore, when tested the impugned order passed by the
Additional Commissioner Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur cannot be faulted with.
Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Record is returned back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MTK
