Yogesh Tembhurne vs M.P. Professional Examination Board, Bhopal and another

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

With consent heard finally.

Aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the select list issued by the first respondent M.P. Professional Examination Board (for short the Board) for appointment on the post of Patwari in the Office of the Collector (Revenue), District Ujjain the petitioner a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Briefly stated, on the basis of an advertisement issued by the Board inviting applications for appointment on the post of Patwari for various Districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh the petitioner submitted his application (Annexure R-l/2) for such appointment in Ujjain District, on the proforma prescribed by the Board for making the application. After receipt of his application the Board issued him the admit card (Annexure P/7) allowing him to appear in the examination. The petitioner appeared in the said examination and as per the result sheet (Annexure P/8) issued by the Board he secured 137.84 marks.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he secured 137.84 marks his name has not been included in the select list. According to him in view of the marks obtained by him his name should have been placed at merit No. 5 of General Category select list and in Scheduled Caste Category it should have been at merit serial No. 1 of the select list. Thus according to him though he got merit position in the examination, the action of the Board in not including his name in the select list is illegal and arbitrary.

The first respondent Board has filed reply. It has been stated by the Board that the Patwari Selection Examination, 2008 was held to fill up District wise vacant posts of Patwari. Total posts to be filled up were 2194 for general vacancy and 124 posts were for backlog vacancies. At Ujjain District total 55 posts which were available were of general vacancy and no post was for backlog vacancy. Out of the said 55 posts, 14 posts were for Scheduled Caste, 2 posts were for Scheduled Tribe, 8 posts were for Other Backward Class and 31 posts were for Unreserved Category.

It is the case of Board that in Column No. 14 of the application form the petitioner furnished incorrect information. In the said Column No. 14 if the candidate is of Scheduled Caste/Tribe Category he was required to mention that out of the three types of vacancies namely General Backlog or both the categories the proposal is for which Category of vacancy. However, though for Ujjain District no post was available in backlog category vacancy and all the posts were of General vacancy, the petitioner mentioned for backlog vacancy. Thus according to the Board the petitioner did not fill up the application form correctly, in the circumstances his name has not been included in the select list.

6A. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

From the averments made by the parties it is clear that undisputedly the petitioner secured 137.84 marks and he was entitled to be placed at serial No. 5 of the merit list of General Category candidates in the select list issued by the first respondent. However his name has not been placed in the select list in view of his filling of Column No. 14 of the form incorrectly.

In order to appreciate as to whether the decision of Board not to include the petitioners name in the select list is justified, it would be necessary to consider the nature of the information which has been wrongly furnished by the petitioner in the application form and the effect of such wrong furnishing of the information on his selection.

The relevant directives issued by the State Government for holding Patwari Selection Examination, 2008 on which both parties have placed reliance are extracted below :

Rule 2.1 provides that for the mistakes committed in filling entries in the form the candidate shall himself be responsible. Rule 2.2 provides that in the application form if the information which is required to be furnished as shown in asterisk (*) is not filled up, the result of the examination of such candidate shall not be declared. Rule 2.5, provides that in case after issuance of the admit card if any mistake is noticed the Board shall have power to suspend or cancel the admit card.

Admittedly on submission of the form it was scrutinised by the Board. After scrutiny the petitioner was allowed by the Board to appear in the examination. It is also not in dispute that his result was declared. His name has not been shown in the select list for the reason that he furnished incorrect information. The said information required to have been furnished for the statistical purposes, in view of the specific foot-note put by the Board in the application form. On going through the contents of the application form (Annexure R/1-2) it reveals that the information which was required to be furnished in * (asterisk), the same was to be furnished mandatorily for getting admission in examination and for declaration of result. The said foot note in application form provides that the other informations are only for the statistical purposes. Thus undisputedly the information required under column No. 14 which was not correctly furnished by the petitioner, was only for the purpose of statistical use and the only object of seeking such information was for collecting the statistics. The furnishing of the same was not mandatory in nature as there is no * (asterisk) mark in column No. 14 of the application form.

Thus when according to the Board itself furnishing of the said information was only for the statistical purpose if by bona fide mistake the petitioner has incorrectly filled up the same which was not with view to have some undue advantage out of it and when it is also not the case of the Board in my considered view the same could not have been made basis for not including the petitioner''s name in the select list. It is also pertinent to mention that the Board did not cancel the petitioner''s application form on scrutiny on the basis of furnishing such incorrect information, on the contrary the Board issued the admit card and allowed him to participate in the examination and thereafter declared his result too. In such circumstances the action of the Board in not including his name in the select list is illegal and arbitrary. In the absence of allegation of suppression of material information or furnishing wrong information for deriving undue advantage, or furnishing incorrectly any mandatory informations, the impugned action of the Board cannot be justified.

As a result in my considered view the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.

The respondents are directed to include the petitioner''s name in the select list of Ujjain District and are also directed to send him for Patwari training, treating him to be a selected candidate for the same. No orders as to costs.