SAURABH VERMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 30/01/2018 (Annexure P1) passed by Directorate, Urban Administration & Development, MP, Bhopal, by which the candidature of the petitioner for post of Assistant Accountant, has been rejected on the ground that he is not holding one year Computer Diploma Course from a recognized institution and accordingly, the petitioner does not hold the minimum qualification.

(2.) Challenging the rejection of candidature of the petitioner by the respondents, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that for the post of Assistant Accountant/Cashier, the minimum qualification is Graduate in Commerce from a recognized University and Proficiency in Computer. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued in the year 2017 for appointment on the post of Assistant Accountant, in which it was mentioned that the candidate must have the minimum qualification as provided under Rules and even in the advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that the candidate for the post of Assistant Accountant, must be graduate in Commerce from a recognized University and must have Proficiency in Computer from a recognized institution It is submitted that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he is not holding one year Computer Diploma Certificate from a recognized institution, is de hors Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Appointment and Conditions of Service for Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 which were duly amended in the year 2015 as well as the qualifications mentioned in advertisement. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the candidature of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected.

(3.) The respondents have filed their return and they have stated that, where the Rules are silent as to judge the Computer Proficiency of a candidate, then for a fair and impartial process of appointment, if the employer has fixed some uniform qualification which supplements the statutory Rules and does not supplant, then the same cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. However, when the Counsel for the State was directed to produce a document fixing the uniform qualification thereby supplementing the statutory rules, then it was fairly conceded by the Counsel for the State that there is no such written decision in this regard. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.