HARISH CHANDRA BANSAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Collector, Shivpuri dated 22 -8 -1998 and the consequential order passed by the respondent No. 3. They have also prayed for the quashing of the order issued by State Government dated 4 -5 -1998. Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that a similar controversy as raised in this writ petition had been raised in W.P. No. 1678/98 (Smt. Arti Bhatnagar and others vs. State of M.P. since reported in : 2000 (2) MPLJ 151), disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 22 -12 -1999. The order of the Collector, which is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition, was also under challenge in the aforesaid writ petition.

(2.) A perusal of the order disposing of the writ petition in the case of Smt. Arti Bhatnagar (supra) indicates that the directions issued under that order cover the case of the petitioners also. Learned counsel for the petitioners has however urged that in the aforesaid writ petition of Smt. Arti Bhatnagar (supra), the question in regard to the validity of the order issued by the State Government dated 4 -5 -1998 had not been challenged and they may be prejudiced and may be deprived of the benefit envisaged under Rule 5(9)(i)(b) of the M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that it was not open to the State Government to vary the statutory provision on the strength of ­administrative order or circular. What has been urged is that once the rule haying statutory force entitled a candidate to have 25% marks for the teaching experience the State Government could not by issuing an executive instruction or administrative order limit or vary the same.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the State Government had no jurisdiction to vary or alter the statutory provision contained in Rule 5(9)(i)(b) of the Rules by issuing an administrative order carving out different categories of candidates for the purpose of the award of marks less than 25% of marks for their teaching experience. The contention is that when the statute itself ensured the award of 25% marks to a candidate having teaching experience, it was not open to the State Government to reduce the number of marks or percentage secured in favour of candidates having teaching experience and thus depriving the candidate of a benefit secured in favour of the eligible candidates by virtue of having to their credit a teaching experience also. The learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has however urged that the apprehension of the petitioners is totally misconceived. It has been pointed out that the provision contained in Rule 5(9)(i)(b) of the Rules stipulates award of 25% marks for the teaching experience in the schools of concerning Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat and extending of the similar benefits for teaching experience of equivalent rural school, further providing that the decision of the Committee on the validity and valuation of the certificate of teaching experience of rural schools will be final. The contention is that the evaluation of the teaching experience has to be done by the Committee and the entitlement of marks for teaching experience may vary within the upper limit of 25% and in this view of the matter to avoid arbitrariness a guide -line has been provided vide the circular issued by the State Government whereunder the candidate having teaching experience for a session having a duration of eight or more months was entitled to the credit of marks upto 9%, a candidate having teaching Experience for two sessions was entitled to the credit of marks upto 17% and candidate having to his credit the teaching experience of three sessions or more was entitled to the credit of marks to the extent of 25%. It is stated that the Committee is still left with the discretion to award marks within the outer limits as provided in the guide -lines while evaluating the teaching experience.