DINESH KUSHWAH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter is analogously heard with Writ Petitions No.5305/2013, 5306/2013, 5307/2013, 5314/2013, 5315/2013, 5316/2013, 5317/2013, 5318/2013, 5319/2013, 5320/2013 and 5352/2013. These petitions involve similar question of facts and law, therefore, the matters are heard finally with the consent of parties. The grievance of the petitioners is that they possess requisite qualification, yet their candidature is orally rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the Gazette Notification of the State Government submits that "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya" is a creature of the State Act of 1995 (No. 37 of 1995). This Vishwavidyalaya is empowered to impart education on various subjects. By placing reliance on the notification dated 9.5.1997, it is contended that the said Vishwavidyalaya is competent and recognized to impart education in the field of typing and shorthand. On the strength of these notifications, it is contended that the rejection of the petitioners' candidature by oral order is bad in law.

(2.) PER Contra, Shri B.Raj Pandey, learned Government Advocate submits that the conditions for recruitment are made by the Home Department under the provisions of Police Regulations. By placing reliance on the condition No.2 of the Rule, Annexure P/5 (at page 24 of WP No.5292/2013), Shri B.Raj Pandey submits that the certificate, Annexure P/3 in WP No.5292/2013 and similar certificates filed in other petitions, do not show that these are the diploma certificate in Modern Office Management and are issued by recognized institution nor these are equivalent to the certificates as mentioned in aforesaid condition No.2. The aforesaid condition No.2 reads as under:- .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, these petitions are disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to prefer separate detailed representations with relevant documents as aforesaid and submit it before the respondents No.2 and 3. In turn, the respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representations and take a final decision expeditiously, preferably before finalising the selection and issuance of the appointment order. The outcome shall be communicated to the petitioners. With the aforesaid, petitions are disposed of.