AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This writ appeal u/s 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.613/2014 by which the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by Additional Collector, Morena in Appeal No.09/2012-13 was set aside and matter was remanded back.
It appears that an advertisement was issued by CEO, Janpad Pancyhayat Sabalgarh, District Morena for appointment of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Poonchri. While preparing the provisional merit list, the respondent was declared ineligible on the ground that he has not filed the copy of voter list. The respondent preferred an objection along with copy of voter list. However, he was not selected and accordingly Appeal no.09/2012-13 was filed by the respondent. The appeal filed by respondent was dismissed by Additional Collector, District Morena on the ground that since he had not filed the copy of voter ID along with his application form, therefore, he was rightly declared in-eligible.
Challenging the order passed by Additional Collector, the respondent preferred a Writ Petition No.613/2014 which was allowed by the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 and the matter has been remanded back to the respondents for deciding the matter afresh without getting influenced by the appellate order dated 27.12.2013.
Challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that filing of voter list was one of the essential conditions and admittedly, voter list was not filed by the respondent along with his application. The voter list was filed by the respondent for the first time along with objection which was filed by him against the provisional voter list. The learned Single Judge did not give any finding as to how the filing of voter list along with the objection, against provisional voter list can be said to be in accordance with law? It is submitted that all the necessary documents must be filed prior to the cut off date and any document filed subsequent there to cannot be taken note of. This vital aspect has been missed by the learned Single Judge.
Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel for respondent. By referring to the receipt of acknowledgment of application form, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that there was no column for filing of the voter list and the only relevant column was the domicile certificate. Since the respondent had filed the copy of his domicile certificate, therefore, non-filing of voter list is immaterial.
Heard the counsels for the parties.
The guidelines for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak have been filed as Annexure P/3 along with writ petition. Clause 4(a)(3) of guidelines reads as under:-
अह�ताएं (अ) अिनवाय� अह�ताएं -
अ यथ� का आवे�दत �ाम पंचायत का �थानीय िनवासी होना चा�हए। �थानीय िनवासी हेतु आवेदक का नाम उस �ाम पंचायत का भारत िनवा�चन क! मतदाता सूची म# पंजीब& होना अिनवाय� एवं पया�' है। �कसी �ाम पंचायत म# 03 से कम �थानीय िनवासी अ यथ� )ारा आवेदन �दये जाने क! *�थित म# संबंिधत �ाम पंचायत क! सीमा से लगे �ाम पंचायत. के �थानीय िनवासी के आवेदन. को भी /वचार 0े1 म# िलया जावेगा।
Thus, it is clear that filing of voter list along with application form was a necessity. The respondent did not file the copy of advertisement to show that filing of voter list was not made an essential condition for maintaining an application for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak.
The petitioner/respondent has filed the provisional merit list which contains two columns i.e. whether the aspirant is the local resident or not and whether the voter list has been filed or not. In the provisional merit list, it is mentioned that the respondent is the local resident, but it is also mentioned that the voter list has not been filed. As already pointed out, as per the guidelines for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak filing of the voter list of Gram Panchayat was made essential. Unless and until, it is held by learned Single Judge that filing of voter list in the face of the domicile certificate was not essential, the learned Single Judge could not have ignored the condition of filing of voter list as provided under Clause-4(a)(3) of the Guidelines pertaining to the appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak.
Admittedly, the voter list was not filed prior to cut off date. The moot question for consideration is as to whether any document can be filed after the cut off date is over or not. The question is no more res integra.
The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr. reported in 1997 (4) SCC 18 has held as under:-
"6.So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated 1st September, 1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by the Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ) is unsustainable in law,. the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that dat e alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their application ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority Judgement. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others [1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168]. The reasoning in majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able to get the bests talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible Justification It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of low and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have allowed to appear for interview."
The Supreme Court in the case of Dipitimayee Parida vs State Of Orissa & Ors reported in 2008 (10) SCC 687 has held as under:-
"16.Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra-qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application. This has been so held in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan & ors. [1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168], stating:
"The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question arc liable to be quashed."
The Supreme Court in the case of Thahira P vs The Administrator, Ut Of Lakshdweep reported in 2018(6) SCC 446 has held as under:-
"16.There also must be some adherence to the timelines held out to all candidates. In the present case, all the candidates were informed that if they had any objection to the check-list, they should file an objection before 1 p.m. on 26th May, 2011. Kadeeja did not file her objection within the prescribed time. As such, the Administration was fully justified in not considering her objection or rejecting it as being beyond the prescribed time. Adherence to such time limits, if not strictly followed, can again lead to uncertainties particularly if other candidates also start raising objections after the cut off date and providing some justification for the delay. In such circumstances, the process of selection would get bogged down and unduly prolonged which would neither serve the interest of the concerned institution nor the management of affairs of the institution."
Thus, any document relied upon by the respondent by filing the same after the cut off date cannot be looked into. This aspect has also not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that remanding the matter back after 14 years of appointment and that too without addressing to the material questions, the learned Single judge has committed material illegality by setting aside the merit list and remanding the matter back.
Since the respondent had not filed the copy of voter list along with his application and the voter list was filed only along with the objection to the provisional merit list and in view of the fact that no document can be filed after the cut off date, this Court is of considered opinion that the petition itself was mis-conceived and accordingly, the order dated 28.01.2026 is hereby set aside and petition is dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.