IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL th ON THE 13 OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 22016 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

DHARMRAJ VISHWAKARMA S/O SHRI SHIVBALAK PRASAD VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O VILL. POST SUJI, TAH. MAUGANJ DISTT. REWA M.P.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ASHUTOSH GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COLLECTOR REWA REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. VIKAS PANDEY S/O ANIRUDDHA PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, VILL. SUJI TAH. MAUNGANJ DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE)

(SHRI BRINDAVAN TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 4)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed being aggrieved of orders dated 10/11/2015 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV Annexure P-6 passed by the Collector, Rewa in Case No. 27/A- 89/Appeal/2014-15 and then the order passed by the Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Guarantee Parishad, Bhopal in Case No. 173/2017-18 whereby in violation of the stipulations contained in the advertisement as Annexure P-1 which provides that incomplete or defective applications or in the event of furnishing incorrect application shall be rejected, application filed by the private respondent was allowed.

Petitioner's contention is that instead of rejecting an application of the private respondent who had admittedly not filed a copy of the Mool Niwasi Praman Patra as was ticked by him along with his application form available on record, application being incomplete was liable to be dismissed.

Later on, private respondent was given zero marks, then he had produced a copy of his Sthaniya Niwaasi Pramaan Patra and voter list to prove that he is a local resident of village Suji.

Thus, it is submitted that the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner without taking into consideration the stipulations contained in the advertisement itself that incomplete or defective applications are liable to be rejected. The impugned orders have been passed which calls for interference.

Shri Brindavan Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that the only requirement was to provide voter list as a matter of proof of residence. Petitioner had filed that voter list along with his objections against the provisional merit list in which petitioner's name was rejected and that was accepted by the authorities and, therefore, the appeal and second appeal have been rightly dismissed by the authorities of Collector and Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh Rojgar Guarantee Parishad.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this High Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV Court in W.A. No. 1609/2022 and relying on paragraphs 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 9.2 and 10.2, it is submitted that some mistakes are rectifiable and if some mistakes are rectifiable, that will not cause dismissal of the application.

Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate in his turn submits that since it is evident from the original record that despite filling the column of Sthaniya Niwasi Pramaan Patra being enclosed, private respondent had not enclosed that Praman Patra, his application was liable to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed and he did not find place in the provisional list. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking this fact into consideration that the advertisement Annexure P-1 itself provides for dismissal of incomplete/defective applications or rejection of those applications which contain incorrect information, admittedly, petitioner having failed to enclose copy of the Sthaniya Niwasi Pramaan Patra despite mentioning it in the form as is available on record and as was submitted by the petitioner on 14/07/2014, made himself liable to the