Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5296
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ
THE GENERAL MANAGER UNIT HEAD BANK NOTE PRESS DEWAS – Appellant
Versus
ROHIT VANJARI – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No. 2764 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Vivek Patwa
For the Respondents: Shri Ranjeet Sen
Appellants’ cancellation of the respondent's candidature was found lawful, emphasizing the importance of adhering to specified essential qualifications while recognizing the merit of higher qualifications in recruitment.
Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 - Writ appeal - Challenge to the cancellation of candidature based on qualification discrepancies and recruitment policy - Appellant’s decision to cancel respondent's candidacy upheld as lawful considering qualifications stated in advertisement and corrigendum issued post-application - Court finds merit in respondent's position and upholds writ court's order to appoint him for the post. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Recruitment Policy - Essential and desirable qualifications - Clarity needed in application forms regarding qualification categories. (Paras 6 & 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellants issued a common advertisement for various posts, during which the respondent applied for a position not meeting the newly specified essential qualifications post-corrigendum, leading to his cancellation by the appellants and subsequent writ petition by the respondent that succeeded.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, stating qualifications are vital to recruitment, and the respondent had proven to possess desirable qualifications needed under applicable policies.
Issues: Whether the respondent’s candidate qualifications aligned with the requirements set post-corrigendum, and fairness of cancellation due to qualification misrepresentation.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court affirmed that the desirable qualifications, rather than essential ones, should not disqualify a competent candidate especially when no others meet basic requirements, validating the writ court's original ruling against the appellants.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ appeal filed against wrongful cancellation of candidature. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments focused on misrepresentation of qualifications. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court acknowledges merit in respondent's qualifications. (Para 7) |
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI th ON THE 5 OF AUGUST, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 2764 of 2024 THE GENERAL MANAGER UNIT HEAD BANK NOTE PRESS DEWAS AND OTHERS Versus ROHIT VANJARI Appearance:
Shri Vivek Patwa - Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ranjeet Sen - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The appellants have filed this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2024 passed in W.P. No.3106/2024 (s), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner has been allowed.
The facts of the case, in short, are as under:-
2. The appellants issued a common advertisement dated 22.07.2023 for appointment to various technical and non-technical posts by way of direct recruitment. The petitioner submitted an application form for the post of Junior Technician (Information Technology). In the advertisement for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN aforesaid post, the following qualifications were prescribed, which are as under:
"Junior Technician (Information Technology)
Essential: Full time ITI certificate recognized from NCVT/SCVT in Information Technology Trade. OR Higher qualification i.e. Full Time Diploma in Information Technology from Government recognized Institutes/ polytechnics will also be considered".
3. In the application form, the petitioner declared his qualification, i.e., a full-time diploma in information technology from RGPV. According to the appellant, immediately a corrigendum No. 1 was issued in which for the post of Junior Technician (IT) the essential qualification was disclosed as "Essential: Full-time ITI certificate recognised from NCVT/SCVT in Information Technology Trade". There is no such desirable qualification for the post in question. Since the petitioner does not possess the essential qualification, therefore, vide letter dated 29.01.2024, his candidature has been cancelled. Hence, the respondent/petitioner has filed the writ petition.
Heard and Conclusion
4. The service conditions of the employees working in the appellant's establishment are governed under the SPMCIL Recruitment Policy, 2012 which is not statutory in nature. Even otherwise, the qualification for the post in question is governed under Rule 5.0 which is "Eligibility Criteria", and according to Rule 5.1 "No appointment shall be made at any post in the Company unless the person fulfills the minimum eligibility requirements and conforms to the specifications prescribed for the post. Rule 5.2 says that "The selection criteria, which include educational and/or professional qualifications, are essential as well as desirable, within the age limit Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN prescribed for the post in question. In the Annexure to this Policy, 2012 the qualifications for the post of Junior Technician are as under:-
Induction Level/ Upper Age ESSENTIAL DESIRABLE Designation Limit Full Time I.T.I. certificate in the Diploma W-1 25 years respective Trade Holders
5. Shri Patwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the petitioner has wrongly disclosed his desirable qualification as an essential qualification in the application form; otherwise, the same would have been rejected along with the other 10 aspirants. In fact, the petitioner possesses only one desirable qualification for the post of Junior Technician (Information Technology); hence, he cannot be appointed. However, Shri Patwa admits that the desirable qualification is a higher qualification than the essential qualification, and no candidate possessing the desired qualification applied for the said post.
6. Shri Patwa, learned counsel has failed to point out the date when Corrige
