SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per the rules regarding Selection of Patwari Examination, 2008, the respondentState of M.P. issued an advertisement for filling up of the post of Patwari. Petitioner possesses the necessary qualifications. Petitioner applied for the post of Patwari and appeared in the selection process. The result of petitioner was declared in which he secured merit position at Serial No. 9 in the open unreserved category. Petitioner also submitted a computer diploma certificate issued by Chhattisgarh University, Raipur. However, since the case of petitioner was not considered by respondents, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5360/2011 which was decided by order dtd. 16/9/2011 wherein a direction was issued to consider the representation of petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation before the respondentCollector, Tikamgarh and without properly considering the representation of petitioner, on 16/4/2012, through some officer/employee sitting in the office of the Superintendent of Land Records asked certain questions from petitioner regarding the computer peripherals. Petitioner replied to the said questions and also typed the matter as directed. Despite above facts, the respondents rejected the application of petitioner by a note-sheet dtd. 19/4/2012. It is further submitted that once petitioner possesses the necessary qualifications and as per the Rules/ Advertisement regarding the Selection of Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P/1), there is no procedure prescribed for conducting an interview of the candidate. It is further submitted that petitioner possesses the qualification of DCA from Chhattisgarh University, Raipur, and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already held that the PGDCA/DCA certificates issued by Chhattisgarh University, Raipur are valid certificates and constitute the requisite educational qualification as per Clause 1.8 of the Advertisement/rules regarding selection of Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P/1). It is further submitted that the candidates namely Sheetal Arya, Sourabh Rawat, and Sourabh Gupta whose names appear at Serial Nos. 14, 15, and 26 in the merit list have been selected and appointed as Patwari and they also possessed the qualification of DCA from Chhattisgarh University, Raipur, however, despite being similarly situated, petitioner has been discriminated against. It is further submitted that candidate Sheetal Arya, Sourabh Rawat, Sourabh Gupta have been appointed on the basis of similar order which has been passed in the case of petitioner in W.P. No.1606/2011. It is further submitted that rejecting the case of appointment of petitioner by impugned note sheet dtd. 19/4/2012 is without jurisdiction because under the Rules and as per advertisement Committee cannot be constituted and they cannot take interview because the selection process is prescribed as per the merit list prepared by Vyapam and once petitioner has been selected by Vyapam and secured the merit position at Serial No.9 then respondents cannot supersede the right of petitioner while selecting less meritorious candidates and denying petitioner from selection by adopting the different procedure of interview and practical examination, especially without considering the fact that the interview and practical examination has not been mentioned in the rules /regulation/ advertisement regarding the Selection of Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P/1). It is further submitted that action on the part of respondent is not only without jurisdiction but it is also violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State submitted that Commissioner had issued a general direction dtd. 2/4/2012 to the Collector on the basis of order dtd. 21/1/2011 passed in W.P. No.841/2011 and order dtd. 8/4/2011 passed in W.P. No.2871/2010.