Devendra Pratap Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.6.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby his appointment order is cancelled by the respondents. The petitioner was appointed by order dated 29.2.2012 (Annexure P/7). The said appointment order is cancelled by impugned order. Shri D.K. Katare, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2975/2010 before this Court. The said petition was decided on 14.12.2010 (Annexure P/6) and it was held that one year diploma certificate in computer application issued by Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur is valid one. Accordingly, by giving opportunity to verify the genuineness of the certificate the petitioner was permitted to participate in the training and consequently his appointment order was passed. He submits that impugned order is bad in law because it runs contrary to Nikhil Kumar Godha and another Vs. State of M.P. and others, . The impugned order is attacked on yet another ground that the petitioner''s qualification is prior to cut off date and respondents have erred in rejecting it by treating it to be after cut off date, i.e., 7.7.2008. He placed reliance on the certificate, Annexure P-5, and submits that it is clear from the marksheet that it is for the session July 2007 to June 2008 and, therefore, it is much before the cut off date. Lastly, it is alleged that the petitioner was appointed by Sub-Divisional Officer and, therefore, termination by Collector is impermissible because the Collector was appellate authority.

Per Contra, Mrs. Pachauri, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate supported the order passed by the respondents.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the first round of litigation (Annexure P-6) the question was totally different. The question was regarding recognition of a particular University. Thus, this Court opined on that issue only. The question of cut off date etc. was not the question in the said litigation. In fact the question regarding cut off date is decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2871/2010 (S) (Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar vs. State of MP). In the said case the Division Bench held that circulars dated 27.7.2009 and 26.8.2009 do not extend the cut off date for acquiring the eligibility of educational qualification. It is further held that "circulars only permit such candidates to submit the degree or diploma certificates issued under the seal and signature of the University". A bare perusal of the said judgment would show that the date of issuance of certificate is relevant. By applying the said principle in the present case would show that the date of issuance of marksheet in the case of petitioner is 17.10.2008. Thus, merely because the said certificate is issued for the session of July 2007 to June 2008 would not mean that the cut off date would be prior to issuance of the certificate. In other words, it is the date of issuance of the certificate which is to be tested on the anvil of cut off date prescribed in Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar (supra). The cut off date is 7.7.2008. Consequently, this contention of Shri Katare is devoid of substance that the petitioner''s certificate is prior to the cut off date. At the cost of repetition, it is held that duration of session has no relevance for determining the cut off date, rather it is the date of issuance of the certificate which will decide the eligibility of a candidate.

So far the other contention of the petitioner is concerned, i.e., competence of Collector, it can be gathered from the appointment order (Annexure P-7) dated 29.2.2012 that it was passed as ordered by the Collector. Thus, the petitioner was not appointed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as alleged by the petitioner. Annexure P-7 makes it crystal clear that it was issued as ordered by the Collector. It is also made clear in the order, Annexure P-7, that his selection as Patwari has no relation with his eligibility and it will be open for the authorities to examine the eligibility of a candidate. Lateron, admittedly show cause notice was given to the petitioner by the Collector (Annexure P-8). The petitioner filed his reply and thereafter the impugned order is passed. I find force in the argument of learned Deputy Government Advocate that the petitioner was only a probationer and he was not holding the post on substantive/permanent basis and, therefore, no legal right of petitioner is infringed. The Collector dealt with the issue in extenso and after relying on the judgment of Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar (supra) held that the petitioner''s appointment deserves to be cancelled. It is cancelled on the ground that the qualification is acquired after cut off date. I find no infirmity in the said order on the basis of aforesaid analysis. Since appointment order was also issued by the order of Collector, the contention of Shri Katare that Collector is appellate authority is without any basis. In my opinion, Collector is competent to pass the impugned order.

Since the question regarding cut off date for the purpose of acquiring qualification in the matter of Patwari is already settled in Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar (supra), which is the judgment directly on the subject dealing with the same issue, the other judgment cited by Shri Katare in Nikhil Kumar Godha (supra) cannot be applied. Consequently, petition deserves to be dismissed being bereft of merits and substance. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.