Panchayat:
Selection – To the post of ‘Gram Rojgar Sahayak’ – To be conducted under the guidelines dated 2.6.2012 – The Collector of District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, by the revised time schedule dated 17.6.2014 provided for computer efficiency test – Some candidates’ names were removed from the ‘Select List’ based on the result of computer efficiency test – The candidates filed writ petition contending that computer efficiency test was not contemplated as a criteria for selection – Single Judge of High Court allowed the petition – Order was further affirmed in writ appeal as well as in review petition – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The guidelines dated 2.6.2012 was applicable to the entire State of Madhya Pradesh – Alteration of the guideline by prescribing an additional criteria only in respect of one District i.e. Rewa was without authority – The additional criteria, having been introduced after commencement of selection process, was not justified.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though the guidelines dated 2.6.2012 refer to the requirement of computer knowledge as a desired qualification, the same also provides for such qualification in computer exam from the institutions depicted therein and the selection process provides for the assignment of marks. The said guidelines are applicable to all the Districts in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. The Revised Time Schedule dated 17.6.2014 issued by the Collector, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh is only in respect of one District namely District Rewa. [Para 11][653-F-H; 654-A]
1.2 Therefore, at the outset when the scheme applicable to the entire State is made under a common guideline, the alteration of the requirement by prescribing an additional criteria only in respect of one District without such authority do so will not be sustainable. Furthermore, the application for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak was to be made in terms of the revised guidelines dated 2.6.2012. By the Revised Time Schedule dated 17.6.2014 what is provided for essentially is the time frame for carrying out each of the requirement relating to the initiation of the recruitment till the selected candidate joins the post. It is under the said time schedule, as date has been fixed for holding the computer efficiency test. Therefore, it would indicate that the additional criteria has been introduced after the selection process has commenced and when such requirement was not indicated in the fresh guidelines dated 2.6.2012 issued in respect of the entire State. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the High Court that the requirement has been altered after the commencement of the selection process is justified and unassailable. [Para 12] [654-A-E]
2.1 The well accepted position in law is that the person who has acceded to a position and participate in the process cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. It is a norm that if a person/candidate having taken note of a requirement in the notification and even if it is objectionable does not challenge the same but despite having knowledge of the same participates in the said process and takes a chance, on failing the process, such person/candidate cannot turn around and assail the same. Though that is the position in law, the said position of law will not be applicable to the present case. [Para 14][655-C-E]
2.2 In the instant case, firstly, the Revised Time Schedule issued by the Collector, Rewa cannot be termed as the recruitment notification indicating all the criteria for selection; but can only be termed as a time schedule prescribed pursuant to the recruitment process as provided under the fresh guidelines dated 2.6.2012. Therefore, a candidate already in selection list who has appeared in the computer efficiency test on the date depicted in the revised time schedule cannot be considered to have appeared after having knowledge that the same will also be a part of the assessment for selection and cannot be put on the same pedestal. This is more so in a circumstance wherein the schedule for “18th December” as prescribed reads..........”holding of computer efficiency test of selected candidates and those at the top of merit list”. A perusal of the same would indicate that the entire selection would be based on the criteria prescribed and the marks as assigned under the fresh guidelines dated 2.6.2012 and appearance for the computer efficiency test would be treated as a requirement which would enable the authorities to assess a person who has otherwise qualified and has been found fit to be in the selected list or is at the top of the merit list. [Para 14] [655-F-H; 656-A-B]
2.3. Therefore, mere indication of the date for computer efficiency test in the time schedule and the participation therein cannot be considered as if the candidate has acceded to the same so as to estop such candidate from challenging the action of the respondent if the name of such candidate is removed from the select list thereafter treating the same as the basis. Hence in the instant case it cannot be considered as a typical case of approbate and reprobate. [Para 15][656-B-C]
Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of Bihar and Others (2017) 4 SCC 357 : [2016] 8 SCR 815; Subhash
Chandra and Another v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Others (2009) 15 SCC 458 : [2009]
12 SCR 978 – distinguished.
3. A perusal of the order passed by the single judge of the High Court as also the order passed in the writ appeal and the review petition in the relied upon cases would indicate that a detailed discussion has been made by the High Court and there is no reason to differ from the same. [Para 11][653-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.