Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shailendra Udeniya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2025

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION NO.5518 OF 2008

BETWEEN:-

1. SHAILENDRA UDENIYA, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O SHRI RAMNARAYAN UDENIYA,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O WARD NO.11,
BAZARIYA MOHALLA, SEONDHA, DISTRICT
DATIA (M.P.)

........PETITIONER

(BY SHRI M.P.S. RAGHUVANSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI D.S.
RAGHUVANSHI, ADVOCATES)
AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL
2. THE JANPAD PANCHAYAT SEONDHA,
THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
DISTRICT DATIA (M.P.)
3. SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR SIHARE,
S/O SHRI SITARAM SIHARE, SANVIDA SHALA
SHIKSHAK VERG III, PRIMARY SCHOOL
LANCH, POST INDERGARH, DISTRICT DATIA
(M.P.)
4. SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR, S/O SHRI
MAHESHWARI, SANVIDA SHALA SHIKSHAK
VERG III, PRIMARY SCHOOL BASAIMALAK,
DISTRICT DATIA (M.P.)
5. SHRI JAGAT RAM S/O SHRI BHAGWAN
DAS, SANVIDA SHALA SHIKSHAK VERG III,
PRIMARY SCHOOL PARSAUNDAGUJAR,
2

DISTRICT DATIA (M.P.)
6. SHRI TRILOK SINGH, SANVIDA SHALA
SHIKSHAK, PRIMARY SCHOOL FATEHPUR,
DISTRICT DATIA (M.P.)
........RESPONDENTS

(SHRI B. M. PATEL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE
SHRI PRATIP VISORIYA AND SHRI A.S. CHAUHAN, ADVOCATES FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3 & 5
SHRI ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 30th of January, 2025
Pronounced on : 6th of February, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Verma
passed the following:
ORDER

Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

"(i) That, the order dated 21.10.2008 Annexure P/1 passed by the Collector, District Datia in Case No.1/A-89/07-28 may kindly be directed to be set aside.

(ii) That, the appointment and recruitment of respondents No.3 to 6 on the post of Samvida Shala Shiksha Verg III by the impugned recruitment be held to be illegal and same may kindly be directed to be set aside.

(iii) That, as a consequential measure, the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Samvida Shala Shiksha Verg III being a best meritorious candidate in comparions to the respondents no.3 to 6 by counting 20 marks of D.Ed.

examination on the post of Contract Teacher Grade III with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of respondents No.3 to 6 were given

appointment including backwages, seniority and all other consequential benefits with the interest @ 18% per annum.

(iv) That, a criminal action against the respondents No.3 to 6 including the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Seondha who was involved in making such forgery may kindly be directed to be initiated against them under Section 420, 467, & 468 of IPC.

(v) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 6

qualified written examination conducted by Professional Examination

Board (in short VYAPAM) for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade

-III in pursuance to the M.P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak

(Appointment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2001. Under the said

advertisement, 48 posts of Samvida Shala Shikshak were unreserved,

whereas 23 posts were kept reserved for scheduled Tribe and 12 posts

were kept reserved for OBC and accordingly total 85 posts were

advertised. Petitioner secured 53.04% marks in the entrance test conducted

by VYAPAM and whose name was mentioned at serial No.286 in the

selection list (Annexure P-6). Respondent No.3 obtained only 52% marks

in the entrance test and respondent No.4 secured 50.96 marks and

respondent No.5 secured 39.52 marks in the entrance examination. Above

respondents never have any teaching experience before their recruitment,

but teaching experience marks awarded to respondent No.3 to 6 were

absolutely based upon forged documents submitted by them, while the 20

marks of D.Ed. to be awarded to the petitioner, were not awarded to him.

3. Brief facts are further that an Appeal No 1/A-89/07-08 before the

Court of Collector filed by petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated

21.10.2008. District Education Officer certified that teaching certificate of

respondent No.3 to 6 were not issued by their office but ignoring the fact

the Collector, Datia passed impugned order upholding the teaching

experience certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 to 6 are valid.

Petitioner is more meritorious in comparison to all these respondents.

Therefore, impugned order passed by Collector is erroneous and arbitrary.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this petition.

4. Per contra, Respondent No.1 & 2 also opposes the prayer and prays

for its rejection by submitting in their return that marks regarding teaching

experience has been rightly awarded to the petitioner and respondents

No.3 to 6 are entitled to get marks as per their experience certificate. As

per rules, the appointment order has been issued in favour of respondent

No.3 to 6. After conducting enquiry and fact recorded by Collector, Datia,

it has been found that experience certificate issued in favour of

respondents found valid. Validity of experience certificates cannot be

questioned in this matter. Therefore, petition sans merits and substance

and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Per contra, respondent No.3 opposes prayer and submits in his

return that petitioner has not availed the alternate remedy of filing revision

before Commissioner. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed on

account of availability of alternative remedy and petitioner has no locus

standi to file this petition. The fact finding enquiry has been conducted by

Committee constituted by SDO. On the basis of aforesaid, Collector has

passed the impugned order, which is in accordance with law. Petitioner has

secured total 61 marks and he has been shifted to unreserved category.

Therefore, there is no illegality in the aforesaid appointment order. Hence,

this petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Respondent No.5 also opposes prayer by submitting in his return

that petitioner is having alternative remedy of revision before

Commissioner. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed on

account of availability of alternative remedy. Experience certificate issued

in favour of respondent No.3 to 6 have been found benign after

conducting enquiry and on the basis of aforesaid enquiry and certificates,

Collector has rightly passed impugned order and there is no illegality in

the matter. Hence, he prays that petition be dismissed.

7. Respondent No.6 also opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection

by submitting in his return that the impugned order (Annexure P-1) has

been rightly passed by Collector, Datia after making due enquiry into the

matter and it is found that marks awarded to the respondents No.3 to 6 are

rightly based upon experience certificate issued by competent authority.

Although, no separate dispatch register has been produced, but certificate

has been issued by the concerned authorities are not in dispute.

Respondent No.3 to 6 are continuously working in the institution of

respondent No.1 & 2 since 2008. This petition is totally misconceived,

devoid of merits and substance and deserves to be dismissed.

8. Heard parties at length and perused the entire record with due care.

9. In the instant matter, it is clear that Collector, Datia in the order

dated 21.10.2008(Annexure P-1) categorically mentioned that certificate

of experience have been verified by Officers of whom these certificates

have been issued. Certificates have been found correct by Selection

Committee during the course of selection. In the impugned order, it is

categorically mentioned by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat

informed that these certificates have been duly verified.

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Basavaiah Vs. Dr. H. L.

Ramesh & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 5907, it has been held that expert has

evaluated the qualification and experience of candidates when their

appointment were made and Court ought not to have sat as an appellate

Court in recommendation made by experts in the field.

11. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Kumar Vs.

M.P. Public Service Commission (WP No.12534/2018) dated 25.6.2018

held that this Court cannot sit in the armchair of Public Service

Commission and take a decision that answer key is incorrect and the

correct answer is option A.

12. A similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Sajeesh Babu Vs. N. K. Santhosh & Others, (2012) 12 SCC 106 in

which it has been held that it would be normally be wise and safe for the

Court to leave decisions of academic matters to expert who are more

familiar with problems, they face than the Court generally get. Under

Article 226 of Constitution of India, validity of experience certificate

cannot be questioned.

13. On the basis of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion

that expert Committee had carefully examined and scrutinized experience

certificates issued in favour of the respondent No.3 to 6 before selecting

them for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade - III. Therefore, it is

not just for this Court to work as an appellate Court over the

recommendation of expert committee. Therefore, this Court is of the

considered opinion that while exercising the powers under Article 226 of

Constitution of India, genuineness of experience certificates issued in

favour of respondent No.3 to 6 cannot be questioned.

14. Apart from above, petitioner did not specifically plead mala fide

against members of selection committee but petitioner did not implead

members of selection committee as party. Therefore, contention regarding

mala fide against selection committee is not maintainable.

15. It is also contended by petitioner that he was not awarded 20 marks

for experience of D.Ed. Degree, but from perusal of Annexure P-6, which

is detailed table of awarded marks to the petitioner as well as to

respondent No.3 to 6, it is clear that petitioner has been given 20 marks for

the aforesaid degree. Therefore, contention made by petitioner is not

acceptable and looking to the marks awarded to respondent No.3 to 6, it

appears that they have obtained more marks in comparison to petitioner

and it cannot be said that petitioner is more meritorious in comparison to

respondent no.3 to 6.

16. It is also contended by counsel for respondents No.3 & 5 that

petitioner cannot be termed as person aggrieved. Although, it is settled

position of law that only a person aggrieved can file writ petition but due

to the selection of respondent No.3 to 6 petitioners is deprived from his

selection. Therefore, he cannot be treated no an aggrieved person and

contention made by respondent no.3 & 5 is not acceptable and law laid

down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umakant Saran Vs. State of

Bihar and Others, AIR 1973 SC 964 and in the case of Jasbhal

Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578 are not applicable

in the instant matter.

17. It is also remarkable that respondents which have been selected are

working since last 16-17 years and they have been specifically been

absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak and Sahayak Shikshak. Their eligibility

for the post is basic qualification i.e. intermediate with diploma in

education is not disputed. Therefore, this Court is of the considered

opinion that after 16-17 years of their appointment, they are not required

to be disturbed.

18. Hon'ble Apex Court of in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal vs.

State of West Bengal and Ors. 2009 (1) SCC 768 held as under :-

49. In Buddhi Nath Cahudhary & Ors. v. Akhil Kumar & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 328, appointments were held to be improper. But this Court did not disturb the appointments on the ground that the incumbents had worked for several years and had gained good experience.

"We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked on the posts for a long period", said the Court."

19. In M.S. Mudhol (Dr.) & Anr. V. S.D. Hulegkar &. Ors., (1993) 3

SCC 591, the petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto and prayed for

removal of a principal of a school on the ground that he did not possess

the requisite qualification and was wrongly selected by the Selection

Committee. Keeping in view the fact, however, that the incumbent was

occupying the office of Principal since more than ten years, this Court

refused to disturb him at that stage.

20. Therefore, relying upon the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Apex

Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be inequitable

if this Court set aside the appointment of candidates selected, appointed

and are working since 1998-99. Hence, appointment of respondent No.3 to

6 are not required to be disturbed because sufficient time was elapsed from

the date of selection.

21. For all these cumulative reasons, this Court is of the considered

opinion that this petition is totally misconceived and devoid of merits and

substance and impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by respondents are

in accordance with law which does not warrant interference by this Court.

22. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.

23. No order as to cost(s)

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE

ROHIT

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH

Rohit GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=80fa12cbdc4eff8599ee9661f416e13bfc369c80ba5b9ea

SHARMA ac85aeede2b107b1e, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=71EF33CB088D47B0D791FB798FA8918EA7F85B0 6E09FB88C9CE747E8639F9DE8, cn=ROHIT SHARMA Date: 2025.02.06 03:02:20 -08'00'