Anjanilal Dwivedi vs State of M.P.

R.S. Jha, J.—The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the present petition filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III is identical and same to W.P. No. 10818/2013 and therefore, similar and identical order be also passed in the present petition.

The order passed in W.P. No. 10818/2013 was in the following terms:-

�At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners submits that issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision in Anil Bhatt and others v. State of M. P. and others: W. P. No.91/11 (s) decided on 21.02.12.

In this petition the petitioners call in question the illegality of order dated 5.10.09, 7.12.09 and 15.12.09. By these orders as apparent therefrom eligibility criteria for the selection to the post of Contract Teacher Grade-III, was changed.

By order dated 5.10.09 it was stipulated-

By order dated 7.12.09 it was provided-

Petitioners challenge the aforesaid orders on the ground that the qualification mentioned therein has been introduced after completion of examination which was on the basis of the Scheme dated 22.04.2000 as in vogue on the date when the selections were held.

It is contended that there being no stipulations at the time when the applications were invited for selection which was held on 31.8.08 that the incumbent must be continuously working for one from the date preceding selection. It is urged that subsequent amendment changing the essential qualification was without any authority and was contrary to the Scheme of 2000.

In Anil Bhatt (supra) it is 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 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 P-6, 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 P-8 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 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 P-6) 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.�

On 28.3.12, learned Government Advocate was requested to examine as to whether the matter in hand is covered by the decision rendered in Anil Bhatt (supra). It is submitted by learned Government Advocate that the orders which are challenged in this petition has been dwelt with in Anil Bhatt (supra).

In view whereof and keeping in view the principle of law as laid down in K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. and Another, ; Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, ; and Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna and Others Vs. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal and Others, , this Court is of considered opinion that the order dated 5.10.09, 7.12.09 and 15.12.09 being not sustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be and are hereby quashed.

Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioners for appointment to the post of Contract Teacher Grade-III in accordance with the criteria as laid down in the Rules, without being influenced by the order dated 5.10.09, 7.12.09 and 15.12.09.

Let a decision be taken within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order. It is however, made clear that the respondents shall not disturb the appointments already made as vide order passed 25.06.10; the respondents were directed to keep two posts of Samvida Shala Shikshaks vacant.

The petition is allowed to the extent above. However no costs.�

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of in similar terms with a direction to the respondents/authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner and if it is found to be identical to that of the petitioner in W.P. No. 10818/2013, the same relief be granted to the petitioner also or in the alternative, authorities may pass a reasoned order in accordance with law communicating the same to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.