VRINDAVAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid writ petitions are similar in nature. Accordingly, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in the year 2008. After the advertisement issued by respondent No.1, executive instruction dated 5.10.2009 was issued and certain conditions of the advertisement were changed. Against this, petition was filed before the Principal Seat in the case of Anil Bhatt. The petition of Anil Bhatt was allowed. On the basis of said judgment, a batch of petitions were allowed by this Court in W.P.No.1102/2010 (Manmohan Mathur and others Vs. State of M.P. & Others. It is contended that writ appeal filed by the respondents against the order in Manmohan Mathur is rejected by the Division Bench on 6.5.2013.

(3.) BY drawing the attention of this Court, it is contended that the said condition was canvassed before the Principal Seat in Anil Bhatt (supra) and the Principal Seat opined that Rule 7-A was brought in the statute book by way of amendment. That amendment is not retrospective in nature and, therefore, it cannot govern the case in hand. Para 11 of the judgment of Anil Bhatt makes it clear that the amendment by which Rule 7-A was inserted was published in the Gazette on 4.1.2010. Thus, it was opined by the Principal Seat that the amendment will have prospective effect and it will not have any retrospective effect.