Dr. Yashodeep Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 210 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Yashodeep Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025

Author: Subodh Abhyankar

Bench: Subodh Abhyankar

                         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11924                 1




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                                   AT I N D O R E
                                                                          BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

                                                            ON THE 1st OF MAY, 2025

                                                    WRIT PETITION No. 30783 of 2023
                                              DR. YASHODEEP CHAUHAN
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                         Shri Romesh Dave - advocate for the petitioner.
                         Shri Raghav Shrivastava -Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of
                         Advocate General.
                         Shri Vijay Gulani-advocate for for respondent no.2.
                         Shri Kamlesh Mandloi-advocate for the respondent no.3.
                         .....................................................................................................................
                                                                            ORDER

1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the select list dated 29.11.202 (Annexure P/1), issued by the respondent No.2/Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, Indore, whereby the name of the petitioner has been mentioned at Sl. No.6 in the waiting list; whereas the name of the respondent No.3 is mentioned at Sl.No.8 of the select list.

2] The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time when the respondent no.3 submitted her application, she was not having all the requisite documents of eligibility as required by the advertisement

dated 17.08.2022.

3] Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the educational qualification of the candidates applying for the post of Dental Specialist, which is Masters Degree in the relevant subject.

4] Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the condition of the advertisement wherein, it is provided that the candidates must have all such certificates as on 15.10.2022, and any eligibility obtained by the candidate subsequent to the aforesaid date shall not be taken into consideration. 5] Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the reply filed by the respondent no.2/MPPSC wherein, they have relied upon a certificate dated 19.10.2023, issued by the Dean, Medical College, Indore wherein, it is mentioned that the respondent no.3/ Dr. Sakshi Chokhandre has already passed the M.Ds examination in the year 2022, however, in the said certificate, it is not mentioned as to when in the year 2022, the said qualification was obtained by the respondent no.3.

6] Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the another document filed by the Respondent No.2 MPPSC dated 20.10.2023, wherein, the respondent no.3 was also informed that at the time of the interview, she was also required to submit her document as provided in item no. 8, which is the permanent degree of Post Graduate as well as the permanent registration of the Dental Council as on 15.10.2022.

7] Counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure R-3/1 filed by the contesting respondent no.3 wherein, it is certified by the Secretary of the M.P. Public Health & Medical Education Department, Bhopal that the respondent no. 3 has obtained her Degree certificate on 17.03.2023, however, as per the degree certificate, she had already passed the said course in May 2022. It is also stated that in the aforesaid document, the eligibility of obtaining the registration of the Dental Council is not a mandatory condition but, only a desirable condition. It is submitted that even this certificate submitted by the respondent no.3 is not prior to 15.10.2022. Thus, it is submitted the selection of the respondent no.3, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category may be cancelled and since the petitioner's name appears at Sl.No.6 in the waiting list, who is the only candidate in the Scheduled Caste category, the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner in place of the respondent no.3. 8] Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Bihar and

others vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan and others reported as (2021) 17 SCC 141 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar Misra reported as (2017) 11 SCC 521.

9] Counsel for the respondent No.1/State and the respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out.

10] Counsel for the respondent no.3 has also opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the registration of the respondent no.3 in the Master's Degree was in the year 2022, and admittedly, she has already completed the MDS on 26.10.2023, and prior to two years from the year 2022, she has completed her BDS hence, her registration has to be considered from the date of completion of her B.D.S. Counsel has also drawn the attention to para 5 of the reply which is regarding his explanation to the subsequent certificate regarding his eligibility.

11] Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 12] From the record, this Court finds that so far as the advertisement dated 17.08.2022 is concerned, apart from providing for the requisite educational qualifications mandatory or desirable, it is also specifically provided that the educational qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement have to be obtained by the candidates upto 15.10.2022, which was the last date for submission of the application. Whereas, as per clause 4 of the appendix 2 of the said advertisement, it is also provided that the candidates are required to

submit their certificates along with the Online application. Whereas, in respect of the registration certificate of Employment Exchange is concerned, it is mentioned that the said certificate can be produced at the time of interview also.

13] Thus, from the aforesaid conditions of the advertisement, there is no manner of doubt that the requisite certificates regarding the educational qualifications were required to be made available by the candidate at the time of submitting the application itself. Whereas, it was only the registration certificate from the Employment Exchange that could be submitted at the time of the interview. 14] This court also finds that it is an admitted fact that the respondent No.3 did not submit her requisite certificate regarding MDS at the time of submission of her application. In fact, it was submitted subsequently and has also been issued subsequently only i.e., on 19.10.2023, whereas, the last date of the advertisement is 15.10.2022.

15] In such circumstances, the respondent no.3 cannot be allowed to contend that the aforesaid certificate dated 19.10.2023, which has been issued subsequently by the Dean of the Dental College, Indore, should be taken to be a proof of her educational qualification as on 15.10.2022.

16] The contention of the respondent no.3 cannot be accepted that she completed her Master's Degree (MDs) in the year 2022 from the Govt. Dental College, Indore and underwent one year compulsory

rural service bond which was completed by heron 26.10.2023, and hence by taking into account the period spent in the aforesaid rural service, the certificate to this effect has been issued by the Dean, Dental College, Indore which deserves to be taken into account. This court is of the considered opinion that if such certificates are allowed to be accepted, then the very sanctity of the advertisement would be lost.

17] In this regard, reference may also be had to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Kant Ranjan and others (supra), the relevant para 11 of the same reads as under:-

"11. As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority. Also, only those documents, which are submitted along with the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when Respondent 1 -- original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC 'B' certificate along with the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC 'B' certificate. In these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants to appoint Respondent 1 -- original writ petitioner on the post of Constable considering the select list dated 8-9-2007 and allotting five additional marks of NCC 'B' certificate."

(emphasis supplied) 18] And in the case of Vijay Kumar Misra (supra), the relevant para 6 of the same reads as under:-

"6. The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut-off date, if any, prescribed under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed

qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possessed the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post. Therefore, the so-called confession made by the officer in the Court that persons having lower merit than the respondent have been appointed as SDI (Basic), having been based on a misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned Single Judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for issuing the direction for appointment of the respondent. The Division Bench was equally in error in confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thus the judgment of the learned Single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set aside."

(emphasis supplied)

19] In view of the aforesaid, the documents submitted by the respondent no.3 after the cut of date i.e., 15.10.2022, in support of her certificates which were filed subsequently, cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed, and the selection of the respondent no.3 is hereby set aside and it is also directed to the Respondent No.1 and 2 to include the name of the petitioner in the selection list for the post of Dental Specialist and issue her the appointment order within a further period of three weeks. 20] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE

moni