Sameer Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Sameer Kumar Patel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 20, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1089890

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/1089890
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Sep 20, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sameer Kumar Patel

Advocate Shri. Rajendra Pratap Singh

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....rejected. it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he had acquired necessary experience as prescribed by the authorities by working with neta fim pvt.lmt. from 20-6-2010 to 6-11-2010 and thereafter again from 8-11-2011 to 29-10-2012 and he therefore possess experience of one year and five months which has totally been ignored. it is submitted that had the requisite marks for the aforesaid experience been awarded to the petitioner, he would have been selected. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, it is observed that the aforesaid aspect was taken up by the petitioner before the authorities who have considered the petitioner's representation and recorded a finding to the effect that the cut off date for possessing the necessary experience prescribed was 8-11-2011 and therefore the experience of the petitioner from 8-11-2011 to 29-10-2012 having been acquired after the cut off date cannot be considered while scrutinizing his case for appointment. on this ground the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order. it is settled law that a person must possess the necessary prescribed qualifications on the last date for submission of the forms or on the last date provided for in the advertisement as has been held by the supreme court in the case of ashok kumar sonkar versus union of india and others (2007) 4 scc54 in the instant case the petitioner admittedly did not possess the required experience on the cut off date. in the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed. ( r.s.jha ) judge mct

Full Judgment

W.P.No.15121 / 2013 (Sameer Kumar Patel..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.20-09-2013 Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 31-5-2013 by which the petitioner's representation for counting his experience for appointment on the post of Block Technology Manager has been rejected.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he had acquired necessary experience as prescribed by the authorities by working with NETA FIM PVT.Lmt.

from 20-6-2010 to 6-11-2010 and thereafter again from 8-11-2011 to 29-10-2012 and he therefore possess experience of one year and five months which has totally been ignored.

It is submitted that had the requisite marks for the aforesaid experience been awarded to the petitioner, he would have been selected.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, it is observed that the aforesaid aspect was taken up by the petitioner before the authorities who have considered the petitioner's representation and recorded a finding to the effect that the cut off date for possessing the necessary experience prescribed was 8-11-2011 and therefore the experience of the petitioner from 8-11-2011 to 29-10-2012 having been acquired after the cut off date cannot be considered while scrutinizing his case for appointment.

On this ground the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order.

It is settled law that a person must possess the necessary prescribed qualifications on the last date for submission of the forms or on the last date provided for in the advertisement as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar versus Union of India and others (2007) 4 SCC54 In the instant case the petitioner admittedly did not possess the required experience on the cut off date.

In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed.

( R.S.Jha ) Judge mct

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Sameer Kumar Patel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education