Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rahul Patwa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 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 MAY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 9568 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAHUL PATWA S/O SHYAM SUNDAR PATWA, AGED
                           ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT ENGINEER
                           (GEN) EMPLOYEE ID 54152243 O/ O S.E. M.M.-1 SSTPP
                           KHANDWA M.P. R/O AT PRESENT SIVARIYA TOWNSHIP
                           BIR DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI C.L. SETHI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                                 BHAVAN MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWN
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    CHIEF ENGINEER(HR AND A), MPPGCL DISTRICT
                                 JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. POWER
                                 GENERATION CO. LIMITED DISTRICT JABALPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    JOINT SECRETARY, M.P. POWER GENERATION
                                 CO. LIMITED III O/O ED(HR AND A), MPPGCL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RECRUITMENT
                                 NLC INDIA NLC INDIA TAMILNADU BLOCK 1
                                 NEYVELI DISTRICT CUDDALORE (TAMIL NADU)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
                           RESPONDENT NO.1 - STATE AND SHRI HARJAS SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR
                           RESPONDENT NO.5 )

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 02-05-2024
14:16:58
                                                               2
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

Petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Executive Trainee in M.P. Power Generating Company Limited, vide order dated 28.10.2014. Thereafter, he was given NOC to apply for the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical)/Thermal in reference to the advertisement issued by NLC India Limited.

Now, petitioner's grievance is that after issuing said NOC, which has been arbitrarily withdrawn by the Chief Engineer (HR and A), Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited, which is contrary to the ratio of law laid down by Orissa High Court at Cuttack in AFR Dr. Snehlata Mallick Vs.

State of Orissa and others in Writ Petition (C) No.4242/2021, decided on 12.02.2021, wherein, after referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty (AIR 2013 SC 3066) and Prem Chand Somchand Shah Vs. Union of India [(1999) 2 SCC 48], it is held that non grant of NOC is a gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but also arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and therefore, directed the authorities to grant NOC to the petitioner to appear in the interview for faculty at AIIMS, Bhuwaneshwar, pursuant to the advertisement issued on 13.11.2020.

Accordingly, in the same terms, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. It is directed that once NOC was granted and without showing any reason, it could not have been withdrawn in a cryptic manner as has been done by the authorities as is reflected from Annx.P/7. Said decision of the authorities to withdraw NOC is quashed.

It is also directed that if there is no other legal hindrance, vigilance

clearance be issued in favour of the petitioner and also the letter of offer received of NLC be handed over to the petitioner with relieving within fifteen days from today.

In above terms, petition is allowed and disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.