Prasant Bansod Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Prasant Bansod vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 22, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1046189

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1046189
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jun 22, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prasant Bansod

Advocate Shri. B.R.Koshta

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....examination which he qualified, but subsequently he was refused to be sent for training. it is contended that such an act of the respondents was not justified. in response to the notice issued of this writ petition, a return has been filed by the respondents and it has been categorically contended that the petitioner was not registered in the employment exchange as was a necessary condition mentioned in the advertisement annx.p/1. this fact was not earlier examined and the petitioner was permitted to take part in the written examination. however, on verification of this fact when it was found that the petitioner was not enrolled in the employment exchange on the date of application, or on the cut off date prescribed in the advertisement, his candidature was cancelled and he was not allowed to send for patwari training. it is, thus, contended that the claim made by the petitioner is misconceived and the petition is liable to be dismissed. the advertisement annx.p/1 specifically contains a condition in clause-8 that the applicant should be enrolled in any district employment exchange and the said registration should be valid and alive. it is made clear that those who were not enrolled in the employment exchange were not entitled to make the application. from the perusal of the certificate of registration in the employment exchange, it is clear that the enrollment of the petitioner was made after the cut off date prescribed in the advertisement. that being so, he was not eligible to take part in the selection and as such, his candidature was to be rejected. this being so, if the petitioner is not allowed to go for patwari training, no wrong is committed by the respondents. there is no substance in the writ petition. the same is dismissed. (k.k.trivedi) judge. a.praj.

Full Judgment

W.P.No.6791/2010 22.06.2012 Shri B.R.Koshta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents on advance copy.

Heard on the question of admission.

The challenge in this writ petition is with respect to cancellation of the candidature of petitioner for sending him to Patwari training, on the ground that the petitioner had made the application in appropriate manner.

He was permitted to take part in the written examination which he qualified, but subsequently he was refused to be sent for training.

It is contended that such an act of the respondents was not justified.

In response to the notice issued of this writ petition, a return has been filed by the respondents and it has been categorically contended that the petitioner was not registered in the employment exchange as was a necessary condition mentioned in the advertisement Annx.P/1.

This fact was not earlier examined and the petitioner was permitted to take part in the written examination.

However, on verification of this fact when it was found that the petitioner was not enrolled in the employment exchange on the date of application, or on the cut off date prescribed in the advertisement, his candidature was cancelled and he was not allowed to send for Patwari training.

It is, thus, contended that the claim made by the petitioner is misconceived and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

The advertisement Annx.P/1 specifically contains a condition in Clause-8 that the applicant should be enrolled in any district employment exchange and the said registration should be valid and alive.

It is made clear that those who were not enrolled in the employment exchange were not entitled to make the application.

From the perusal of the certificate of registration in the employment exchange, it is clear that the enrollment of the petitioner was made after the cut off date prescribed in the advertisement.

That being so, he was not eligible to take part in the selection and as such, his candidature was to be rejected.

This being so, if the petitioner is not allowed to go for Patwari training, no wrong is committed by the respondents.

There is no substance in the writ petition.

The same is dismissed.

(K.K.Trivedi) Judge.

A.Praj.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Prasant Bansod vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education