Rajeev Kumar and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—These petitions are similar in nature. Accordingly, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard.

The facts are taken from WP No. 5465/2013.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these matters are covered by the recent order passed by this Court in WP No. 2456/2013 (Vrindavan Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

The aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is not disputed by the learned Govt. Advocate. The order impugned is identical to the order which was called in question in the aforesaid matter.

In view of the aforesaid stand of the parties, I deem it proper to apply the principle laid down in the order dated 04.09.2013, in the present case. This Court in the said order, in para 7, held has under:-

In the light of the judgment of Anil Bhatt and Manmohan Mathur (supra), it is clear that the rule of the game cannot be permitted to be changed after issuance of the advertisement. The existing conditions of Recruitment Rules and advertisement are to be followed for the purpose of filling up the vacancies. If rules are amended subsequent to the advertisement, it will have prospective effect from the date of such amendment. I find force in the contention of petitioners'' counsel that the Collector has mechanically applied amended rule 7-A while rejecting the representation of the petitioners claiming parity with Anil Bhatt (supra). In the considered opinion of this Court, it was obligatory on the part of the Collector to examine whether the advertisement in the present case was issued before the amendment and insertion of Rule 7-A and whether petitioners'' fulfill the requirement of unamended provision. The Collector should have considered this aspect in detail while deciding the representation. If petitioners are otherwise eligible and fulfill the requirement of rule prevailing before amendment and at the time of issuance of advertisements and before insertion of Rule 7-A, the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of parity with Anil Bhatt (supra).

On the basis of aforesaid, the impugned order of Collector in these matters are also required to be set aside. Resultantly, the said orders are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Collector to re-examine the representations of the petitioners and take a final decision on it after examining the aforesaid aspect. The entire exercise be completed within 30 days from the date of production of copy of this order. A reasoned order be passed and communicated to the petitioners within the aforesaid time. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that it will be open for the Collector to examine the eligibility of the petitioners along with the applicability of amended Rule 7-A in the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the law laid down in Anil Bhatt (supra). Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No Costs.