Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Maya Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 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 MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 25363 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SMT. MAYA SINGH W/O SHRI DINESH PRATAP SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TRAINING
OFFICER FITTER ITI MAUGANJ DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
SECRETARY TECHNICAL EDUCATION VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR, KAUSHAL VIKAS RAMPUR RAMPUR
TIRAHA NEAR PATROL PUMP NARMADA ROAD
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRINCIPAL ITI MAUGANJ DIST. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PIYUSH BHATNAGAR - PANEL LAWYER)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 19/11/2019
(Annexure-P/9) passed by the Director of Skill Development, Madhya Pradesh
whereby petitioner who was appointed as Training Officer (Fitter) in the
Government ITI, Mauganj, Distt. Rewa has been directed to be removed from
the service in terms of the provision contained in Rule 8(4) of the M.P. Civil
Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 on account of having
more than three living children and also on account of finding that petitioner had
used a forged OBC caste certificate.
2. Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
petitioner was not having more than two living children at the time of
appointment and draws attention of this Court to the fact that advertisement
(Annexure-P/2) was issued in 2012. Petitioner was given appointment order on
16/01/2013 as contained in Annexure-P/4. In this list her name appears at serial
No.25 and she has been shown to have been appointed under the OBC
category.
3. Petitioner's contention is that petitioner had already given her second
child in adoption vide adoption deed drawn between Ramkrishna Singh alias
Ramkesh Singh, S/o Shri Raj Bahadur Singh and Smt. Mithlesh Kumari, W/o
Shri Ramkrishna alias Ramkesh Singh and Dinesh Pratap Singh, S/o Vijay
Bahadur Singh and Smt. Maya Devi, W/o Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh vide
adoption deed dated 12/02/2013 and thereafter another daughter was born on
19/02/2013, therefore, third child has been treated by the petitioner to be a
second child by virtue of the said Godnama as contained in Annexure-P/7
dated 13/2/2013 and on such plea it is submitted that provisions contained in
the advertisement (Annexure-P/2) which prohibited vide Clause 8.7 candidates
from applying who were having more than two children out of whom one was
born after 26/01/2001 for appointment will not be applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case.
4. Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned Panel Lawyer, reading the same clause
submits that petitioner has tried to camouflage the whole situation. She was
already pregnant. Her third child was admittedly born on 19/02/2012, seven
days prior to that she has given her second child in adoption so to come out of
the clutches of the provisions contained in the advertisement and which have
become part of the statutory requirement.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that Rule 8(4) of the M.P. Civil Services (General
Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 provides that services of a probationer
may be terminated during the period of probation if in the opinion of the
appointing authority he is not likely to shape into a suitable government servant.
This being the legal position, and there being two aspects namely violation of
the provisions which prohibits third child after 26th January, 2001 is only an
exception that if during the second delivery children are born as a twins or a
triplet or so on, then they will not be treated to be more than two children,
merely giving a child in adoption, seven days prior to the third delivery will not
be a sufficient circumstance to treat that petitioner was not having three
children. Even otherwise, there is a finding that the caste certificate on the
strength of which petitioner had obtained appointment, was found to be forged
and, thus, when examined, then discharge simplicitor by the impugned order
without casting any stigma on the petitioner, cannot be said to be arbitrary or
illegal.
6. Petitioner relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this
High Court in the case of Basant Kumar Gupta and other connected
matters (W.P. No.11740/2018) decided on 07/08/2019 and that of another
Division Bench in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and another
(W.P. No.15680/2017) decided on 23rd February, 2018 which are in regard
to the Judicial Officers and the Division Bench has held that the rules of 1961
are not applicable. Since that issue is wide open as to whether the rules of
1961 will be applicable on M.P. Judicial Services or not, however, these
judgements on which Shri Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance will be of no assistance to the petitioner inasmuch as it is not the
petitioner's case that the rules of 1961 will not be applicable to the case of the
petitioner who was appointed on a civil post under a civilian department.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
