Raj Kumar Rane vs State of M.P. and Others

N.K. Mody, J.—The prayer in the petition is to quash the Selection List (Annexure P-8). It is alleged in the petition that for the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak, advertisement was published by Janpad Panchayat, Badwah, Petitioner and respondent No. 4 submitted their application. Application submitted by respondent No. 4 was allowed and respondent No. 4 was appointed on said post, against which a representation was filed by the petitioner alleging that petitioner is more meritorious as marks, which ought to have been given on account of having certificate of Diploma in Computer Application was not given to the petitioner. It is submitted that appointment of respondent No. 4 be quashed. It is further submitted that representation submitted by the petitioner was not considered for a long time, hence the present petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was holding the Diploma in Computer Applications, for which petitioner was entitled for 20 marks but same was not given while respondent No. 4 was having no knowledge about the computer, therefore, appointment of respondent No. 4 is illegal. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Ashutosh Mishra Vs. State of M.P., 2009 (III) MPJR 113.

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that eligibility criteria was passing of Higher Secondary Examination and respondent No. 4 was more meritorious than the petitioner. So far as Diploma in Computer Application is concerned, the certificate (Annexure P-2) is not from any of the Institutions mentioned in Clause 2 (kh) of the advertisement. It is submitted that Diploma Certificate is required from a Institute, which is approved by the State Govt. or from ITI. It is submitted that Annexure P-13 is the clarification dated 12-3-2010 whereby a query was made regarding the acceptance of Diploma Certificates and it was clarified by the State Govt. that Diploma level examination DOECC issued by local institution shall not be accepted. It is submitted that in view of this, since respondent No. 4 was more meritorious than the petitioner, therefore, no illegality has been committed by respondent No. 3 in appointing the respondent No. 4 on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. It is submitted that petition be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that appointment of petitioner is under National Rural Guarantee Scheme. As per Clause 5.2 of the Scheme, any order relating to appointment or termination is appealable before the District Programme Co-ordinator. It is submitted that since efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, which was not availed, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed and be dismissed.

From perusal of record, it transpires that undisputedly in the Higher Secondary Examination, petitioner has secured 65.33 marks while respondent No. 4 has secured 66.22 marks. The petitioner is claiming on the basis of additional qualification, i.e., Diploma Certificate issued by Dalal Institute of IT & Management affiliated by All India Society for Electronics & Computer Technology (AISECT BC 9038) and accredited to DOECC ''O'' Level (Government of India-ACCR01712). Petitioner has completed the Diploma Course in March, 2009. As per the advertisement which is of the year November, 2009, the certificate of Diploma should be approved from an Institution approved by the State Government or by ITI. The clarificatory circular is dated 12-3-2010, which lays down that certificate issued by the local Institute, accredited/affiliated to DOECC shall not be accepted. The question arises whether the clarificatory circular which was issued subsequently will affect the case of the petitioner or not ? This aspect has been taken into consideration by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ashutosh Mishra (Dr.) Vs. State of M.P., 2000 (III) MPJR 113, wherein it was held that "right accrued on the basis of earlier circular cannot be taken away". The next question, which requires consideration is "whether the Diploma Certificate, which the petitioner is possessing can be taken into consideration for the purpose of appointment on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak ?" For this contention reliance is placed by the petitioner on a decision of this Court in the matter of Sukhdeva Malgaya Vs. State of M.P., decided on 10-8-2011 in W.P. No. 12499/2010, wherein candidate was possessing Diploma Certificate of Computer Education from ITI, therefore, is of no help. From perusal of the statement of marks in Annexure P-8, it is evident that name of respondent No. 4 is shown at S.N. 1 as he secured 66.2 marks while name of the petitioner is kept at S.N. 2 as petitioner secured 65.33 marks. No reason has been assigned why the certificate (Annexure P-2), i.e., Certificate in Diploma in Computer Application cannot be taken into consideration. However, since appeal is provided, therefore, petition is disposed of with a direction that petitioner shall submit an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed by this Court. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to submit the documents to demonstrate that certificate (Annexure P-2) is from a recognised Institute. If such an appeal is filed, then petitioner shall remain present before the Appellate Authority on 11-5-2012 and Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits within two months after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and shall not dismiss the same on the ground of delay in filing the appeal as petitioner was prosecuting the writ petition before this Court bonafidely.

C.C. as per rules.