PADAM SINGH Vs. M P P S C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by his non-selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Geography). The contention of the petitioner is that he has obtained M.A. in 1st Division in the subject of Geography in the year 1990, and thereafter, in the year 1997 he was awarded Ph.D. degree in the subject of Geography. The petitioner has further stated that an advertisement was issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission for filing-up the back log vacancies in respect of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe category and in all 28 posts of Assistant Professor (Geography) were advertised. The petitioner has enclosed advertisement dated 10-7-2003 as Annexure P/3. The petitioner has further stated that as per the advertisement, a candidate was required to have the qualifications for the post as fixed by the University Grants Commission and in case a candidate was holding a Ph.D. degree, he was exempted from passing National Eligibility Test (NET) or Madhya Pradesh State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) Examination. The petitioner has further stated that a corrigendum was issued by the respondents on 27-9-2003 wherein the educational qualification were relaxed and it was provided that the candidates who have not cleared National Eligibility Test (NET), Madhya Pradesh State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) or Ph.D. degree shall be entitled to submit their applications, however, they were required to obtain National Eligibility Test (NET) or Madhya Pradesh State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) or Ph.D. degree within a period of two years from the date of selection. The petitioner has further stated that the qualification, for the post of Assistant Professor are prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 and the Schedule III appended of the aforesaid rules provides for passing of National Eligibility Test (NET) or Madhya Pradesh State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) or Ph.D. degree. The petitioner has further stated that the educational qualification prescribed under the Rules of 1990 are the essential qualifications and the same has been fixed as per the guidelines framed by the University Grants Commission from time to time. The petitioner has further stated that the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were not holding to their credit, the National Eligibility Test (NET) or Madhya Pradesh State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) or the Ph.D. degree, and therefore, they were not entitled to participate in the selection process. The petitioner has also relied upon a letter issued by the University Grants Commission dated 9-12-2004, wherein, it was clarified by the University Grants Commission that the exemption from passing National Eligibility Test (NET) shall be granted only when no National Eligibility Test (NET)/Madhya Pradesh State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) examination was conducted in the subject concerned and shall be granted only when National Eligibility Test (NET)/ Madhya Pradesh State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) qualified/exempted candidates are not available when interviews are held following due procedure. The petitioner's contention is that even though he is holding a Ph.D. degree, he was not called for the selection and, therefore the respondents/authorities have violated the norms framed by the University Grants Commission in not calling the petitioner for the interview and it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to call the petitioner in the first place for the interview as per the guidelines of the University Grants Commission. The petitioner has further stated that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to first call the petitioner for interview and only thereafter, the candidates who are not holding National Eligibility Test. (NET)/Madhya Pradesh State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) could have been called for the interview. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or order or direction for quashing the selection process initiated by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission.

(2.) A reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1/Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. The respondent No. 2/State has adopted the reply filed by the respondent No. 1/Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission in the matter.

(3.) Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2/State and learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1/Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission have stated and argued before this Court, that in order to fill-up the backlog vacancies of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe categories, an advertisement was issued on 10-7-2003, and thereafter a corrigendum was issued on 27-9-2003, wherein it was mentioned that the candidates who have not cleared National Eligibility Test (NET), Madhya Pradesh State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) or Ph.D. degree can also participate in the selection process subject to a condition that they will have to acquire the aforesaid qualification within a period of two years from the date of their selection. The learned Senior counsel has also argued before this Court that the University Grants Commission has issued a notification dated 31st July, 2007 and the University Grants Commission itself has provided exemption/relaxation in respect of qualification as per the aforesaid notification, and also keeping in view the relaxation as provided under Rule 24 of the M. P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 no illegality has been committed in the matter of filling-up the back log vacancies of the scheduled caste and the scheduled tribe candidates. He has also argued that the petitioner with open eyes has participated in the selection process and now is challenging the selection of the respondent No. 4 to 8 after he was declared as an unsuccessful candidate in the process of selection. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the M.P.P.S.C., before this Court is that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the rule of the game as has been done in the present case after the game is over. He has relied upon judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhananjay Malik and ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors., 2008 AIR(SC) 1913 and Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and ors., 2008 AIR(SC) 148 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition,