IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Sumokshi Tiwari, D/o. S.P. Tiwari & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of M.P. & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 19099 of 2023
Decided On : 18-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek appointment based on qualifications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. state argues petitioners cannot challenge conditions. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observes petitioners are estopped from challenging conditions. (Para 4 , 11) |
| 4. legal precedence on estoppel and interview fairness established. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 5. court dismisses the petition. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to directing the respondents to give the appointment to the petitioners on the post of Audiometist (Post Code-23) because their name is appeared in the top-10 applicant list at Sr. No. 2 and 3, in the interest of justice.
III. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit.”
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that an advertisement was issued for Group 5 (Paramedical and Nursing Group) Combined Recruitment Test-2022 by conducting the examination through Employees Selection Board, Bhopal. Petitioners submitted their application forms for the post of Audiometrist (Post Code - 23) by online. Admit cards were issued in favour of petitioners. Petitioners appeared in the examination and they were declared qualified. Name of petitioner No. 1 appeared at Sr.No. 2 of the merit list, whereas name of petitioner No. 2 appeared at Sr.No. 3 of the merit list. By letter dated 9-1-2023 issued by respondent No. 2, candidates were directed for verification of documents. Respondent No. 2 issued another letter dated 5-7-2023 pointing out the names of selected candidates, who were required to appear from 10-7-2023 to 12-7-2023 in the Government Autonomous Yunani Mahavidyalaya Menit Parishar, Bhopal for verification of documents. However, names of petitioners did not appear in the said list. Accordingly, petitioners approached respondent No. 2 and thereafter, list containing the names of disqualified candidates was issued in which name of petitioner No. 1 is mentioned at Sr.No. 7 and name of petitioner No. 2 is mentioned at Sr.No. 8, according to which petitioners were declared disqualified on the ground that they do not hold minimum qualifications as required under the Rules as they are not having registration with Madhya Pradesh Paramedical Council. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have passed BASLP (Bachelor in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology) from New Delhi and accordingly, they sought information under R.T.I. from the office of Registrar, Madhya Pradesh Paramedical Council, who by letter dated 18-5-2023 informed that BASLP course is not included in the courses run by M.P. Paramedical Council. It is submitted that petitioners had got themselves registered with Rehabilitation Council of India, New Delhi because in Madhya Pradesh there is no institution running the course of BASLP. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that condition imposed by respondent in the advertisement to the effect that candidates must have registration with M.P. Paramedical Council is bad. If the course of BASLP is not available in the State of Madhya Pradesh, then petitioners cannot be disqualified only on the ground that they are not registered with M.P. Paramedical Council.
3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that so far as conditions mentioned in the advertisement is concerned, petitioners after having participated in the recruitment process, cannot assail the same as now they are bound by principle of estoppel. It is further submitted that it is not the case of petitioners that for the post of Audiometrist except the course BASLP,
Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla
K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines and others
Madan Lal vs. State of J and K
Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla
Union of India and another vs. N. Chandrasekharan and others
State is meant to be a model employer and must give due importance to the fundamental rights of equality and opportunity in matter of public appointment guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of Constitu....
Candidates cannot challenge recruitment criteria after participating in the selection process, as estoppel applies. Eligibility is determined by the employer based on stated qualifications within the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of eligibility on the cut-off date and the principle of estoppel in relation to the eligibility criteria for government appointments....
Proficiency in Hindi or English cannot be adjudged through multiple choice questions, and no legal right accrued to demand a bilingual question paper.
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.