Dhaniram Namdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav - Court Judgment

1 W.P. No. 15832 Of  2013 10.2.2014 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for State of  M.P. on advance notice.

At the outset learned counsel for petitioner submits that  the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by  the decision in Anil Bhatt and others v. State of M.P. and others :  W.P. No. 91/2011 (S) decided on 21.2.2012.

In   this   petition,   the   petitioner   who   belongs   to   Other  Backward Classes category, initially appointed as Instructor by  order   dated   1.1.1991.

    Subsequently   cleared   eligibility   test   of  Samvida   Shala   Shikshak   Grade   III   held   on   31.8.2008   and  obtained 53.06 % in Section A and 41.67 % in Section B.   The  petitioner   is   Higher   Secondary   and   has   undergone   training  conducted   by   National   Council   of   Educational   Research   and  Training.

    It   is   contended   that   despite   of   his   clearing   the  eligibility   test   of   Samvida   Shala   Shikshak   Grade   III,   the  petitioner is not being considered for appointment to the said  post.

Since   parity   is   being   claimed   with   the   decision   in   Anil  Bhatt and others (supra); wherein it has been held: "Admittedly,   the   examination   in   question   was   held  under the 2005 Rules. Rules 4 and 5 deals with minimum  educational   qualification   as   well   as   prescribed  minimum   marks   for   qualifying   examination.

  From   a  perusal of Rule 4 it is apparent that a candidate must  2 have passed the higher secondary school Examination  or   an  equivalent   examination.

  Rule   5   provides   that   in  the qualifying examination candidates belonging to SC/ ST/OBC   and  disabled   category   should  have   secured   a  minimum 40 % marks whereas cut off marks in respect  of other categories were fixed 50%. In pursuance of the  notification of the vacancies the examination was held  on 31.8.2008 in which the petitioners appeared and they  were   declared   successful.

  Admittedly,   the   petitioners  were declared successful in the examination which was  held   on   31.8.2008.

  Thereafter   Annexure   P­6,   i.e,   the  circular dated 5.10.2009 was issued by which the criteria  for selection was changed and the revised select list was  issued   which   is   contained   in   Annexure   P­8   which   is  legally   impermissible.

  The   contention   of   learned  counsel for the respondents that the State Government  could have withheld the process of selection and could  have   filled   up   subsequently   in   accordance   with  amended criteria need not be examined as no such plea  in the return has been taken.

The   amendment   made   in   the   rules   which   was  published in the Gazette, dated 4.1.2010. It is well settled  now   in   law   that   prima   facie   every   amendment   is  prospective unless there is clear indication in statute or  rule that it would apply with retrospective effect. It is not  discernible from the amendment that it is retrospective  in   nature.

  Therefore   the   amendment   rule   would   not  apply   retrospectively   to   the   proceedings   for   selection  which   were   already   completed.

  For   this   additional  3 reason also, the action of the respondent in excluding  the   names   of   the   petitioners   from   the   consideration  cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

In the result, the circular (Annexure P­6) is quashed.  The respondents are directed to consider the case of the  petitioners   for   appointment   on   the   post   of   Contract  Teacher Grade III in view of the unamended criteria and  in the light of Annexure P­ 5 and if the petitioners are  found otherwise eligible for appointment, to issue order  of appointment." Therefore, without adverting to the merit of the petition,  the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to  consider   the   claim   of   the   petitioner   within   a   period   of   three  months   from   the   date   of  communication   of  this  order   and   if  found   eligible   to   extend   the   benefit   as   has   been   held   in   Anil  bhatt and others (supra).  In case, if the petitioner is not found  eligible   the   respondents   shall   pass   speaking   order   within   the  said period and communicate the same to the petitioner within  the same period.

It   is   reiterated   that   this   Court   has   not   expressed   any  opinion on merit.

The petition stands disposed of finally in above terMs.C.c. as per rules.

 (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi