SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Nitesh Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1215 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.28123 of 2018) With C.A.No. 1216 of 2020 @ SLP(C) No.27200 of 2018 C.A.Nos.1217-1218 of 2020 @ SLP(C) Nos.3225-3226 of 2020 (D.No.41845 of 2018)
Decided On : 07-02-2020
(a) Service law - Selection - Guidelines issued on 02.06.2012 for entire State and followed in all districts except Rewa - In Rewa, District Collector, in revised time schedule, introducing on 17.06.2014 additional criteria of computer efficiency test of selected candidates - High Court rightly held that additional criteria has been introduced after the selection process has commenced. (Para 12)
(b) Service law - Estoppel - Approbation and reprobation - Candidates appearing in selection process which started on and as per guidelines dated 02.06.2012 - Guidelines not requiring computer efficiency test - Collector Rewa issuing revised time schedule - Cannot be termed as the recruitment notification indicating all the criteria for selection - More over the test was required to test computer efficiency of selected candidates on top of merit list - Candidates challenging such requirement cannot be said to approbate and reprobate. (Para 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The issue relates to the selection to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in the Panchayat of the Rewa District in Madhya Pradesh for implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
Adding additional criteria in the name of revised time schedule vitiates the process.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. BOPANNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP No.27200 of 2018 was the appellant in WA No. 509/2018 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In the said writ appeal, the appellant was assailing the order passed by Learned Single Judge dated 02.04.2018 in W.P. No. 1494/2017 and W.P. No. 21425/2016. The appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP No. 28123 of 2018 was the appellant in WA No. 533/2018 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The said appeal was filed assailing the order of Learned Single Judge dated 29.07.2016 in W.P.No.12689 of 2016. The appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) D.No. 41845, was the appellant in W.A No. 207/2017 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated 28.08.2018 in terms of the order dated 06.08.2008 in R.P.No. 682/2018. Though two separate orders dated 06.08.2018 passed in WA Nos. 509 and 533/2018 and order dated 28.08.2018 in W.A.No.207/2017 are assailed in these appeals, since the issue is common and all the writ appeals have been disposed of by the High Court relying upon its earlier orders, these appeals were taken up together, heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The issue relates to the selection to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in the Panchayat of the Rewa District in Madhya Pradesh. Though the issue presently pertains to the method adopted in the selection process in Rewa District, the scheme applicable to the entire state of Madhya Pradesh for such recruitment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak for implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (‘MGNREGS’ for short) is to be taken note and the matter is to be decided in that background. As noted, the issue presently being limited to the selection process in Rewa District assailing the method that was followed therein, it is seen that a batch of writ petitions relating to the same process were earlier considered by a Learned Single Judge through the order dated 15.07.2016 and had allowed the writ petitions bearing W.P.No.17183/2014 and the analogous matters. Challenge to the said order had concluded through the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.479/2016 and the second Review Petition in R.P.No.682/2018. In that circumstance, since in the present case the contentions put forth by the appellants herein before the Division Bench of the High Court was similar to the said cases, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the said writ appeals bearing W.A.Nos.509/2018, 533/2018 and W.A.No.207/2017. The appellants claiming to be aggrieved are, therefore, before this court in these appeals.
4. At the outset, it is to be noted that though the orders dated 06.08.2018 and 28.08.2018 passed in the Writ Appeals relating to the appellants herein are assailed, the relied upon order which contains the reasoning adopted by the High Court is not assailed in these appeals. That apart the SLP against the earlier order is already dismissed. Be that as it may, since the issue urged herein is to assail the relief granted to the writ petitioners by the High Court, the consideration of the correctness or otherwise is to be made in that regard.
5. Heard Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, Ms. June Chaudhari and Mr. Satyam Reddy, respective learned Senior Advocates for the appellants, Mr. Santosh Paul, learned Senior Advocate for the private respondent and Mr. Rahul Kaushik, learned Advocate for the State of Madhya Pradesh. In that light we have also perused the appeal papers.
6. The brief facts are that the official respondents invited applications for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The said appointment was to be made in terms of the fresh guidelines dated 02.06.2012 issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Employment Guarantee Parishad which is a registered institution constituted under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. As per the same, one Gram Rojgar Sahayak per panchayat was to be appointed under
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.