RANVIJAY PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core issue in these batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the petitioners are eligible for consideration and appointment as per the advertisement dated 06.05.2013 (Annexure-P/1) which prescribes candidates must have following qualification:

(2.) In these batch of petitions, admittedly, till last date of submission of candidature i.e. 19.06.2013, the petitioners did not have the degree of Graduation/Post Graduation. As per the condition No. (i) of the advertisement (Annexure-P/1), the candidate must possess requisite qualification before last date of submission of candidature.

(3.) Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel, during the course of argument, fairly submits that similar batch of petitions were listed before the Co-ordinate Bench. Those petitions were also related with the same advertisement and with the same post. The said petitions [W.P. No.10589/2013 (Rahul Verma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)] and other connected petitions are dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench on 10.09.2013 (Annexure-R/1). Shri Singh, learned senior counsel contends that the said order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Rahul Verma is distinguishable in view of the judgment of Supreme Court (Naushad Anwar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2014 11 SCC 203). It is submitted that the judgment of Supreme Court in Naushad Anwar was followed by Jharkhand High Court in W.P. (S) 1402/2015 (Santosh Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, 2014 11 SCC 203). Reliance is also placed on (Himmat Singh Bais Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2012 1 MPHT(Chh) 32 ). In addition, it is submitted that in other advertisements issued by PSC pertaining to different posts, the eligibility condition is different. In those cases, the candidates were permitted to submit certificate/degree at the time of interview. For these reasons, it is urged that the judgment in Rahul Verma is distinguishable and petitions may be allowed.