Vikas Parihar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the challenge to the notification dated 29.01.2010, Clause 5 of Schedule-V, and the advertisement dated 19.09.2023 fails on all grounds. Regarding Issue 1, the Court found that the prescription of educational qualifications is within the employer's policy domain and the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the qualification was tailor-made or mala fide. The Court also noted a previous coordinate bench decision had rejected a similar challenge. Regarding Issue 2, the Court held that the ACR marking scheme is not arbitrary, as it is a component of a larger selection process and the apprehension of subjectivity does not invalidate the Rule itself. Regarding Issue 3, the Court deemed the grievance regarding probationary employees speculative and premature, stating that any individual aggrieved by a specific denial of participation can seek redressal. Regarding Issue 4, the Court affirmed the binding effect of a coordinate bench's decision that had already rejected an identical challenge to the same Rules and advertisement. Furthermore, the Court found the petition failed on the ground of delay and laches, as the 2010 notification was not challenged for nearly thirteen years, during which period the classification had held the field and informed subsequent policies. The Court dismissed the writ petition, vacating any interim relief and allowing the respondents to proceed with the selection process.

Facts

The petitioners, ministerial/clerical employees of the Commercial Tax Department, Madhya Pradesh, who do not hold a Commerce graduation, challenged a notification dated 29.01.2010 amending the M.P. Commercial Tax Department Subordinate Taxation Service (Class-III Executive) Recruitment Rules, 2007. This amendment changed the essential educational qualification for the post of Taxation Assistant from 'Graduate in any stream' to 'Graduate in Commerce'. They also challenged Clause 5 of Schedule-V of the Rules, as amended on 20.07.2023, which introduced a marking scheme based on comparative assessment of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations. The petitioners argued that this amendment and marking scheme rendered them ineligible for the post of Taxation Assistant and were arbitrary. The State raised a preliminary objection of delay and laches, noting the 2010 notification was not challenged for thirteen years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prescription of a distinct educational qualification of 'Graduate in Commerce' for the post of Taxation Assistant, while Commercial Tax Inspector requires 'Graduate in any stream', offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, given that both posts have identical duties, pay scales, and are treated as equivalent for certain purposes? (Question of law). The petitioners argued that this creates an arbitrary classification without an intelligible differentia and rational nexus. The State contended that educational qualification prescription is within the employer's domain and not discriminatory. 2. Whether the award of marks based on ACR assessment under Clause 5 of Schedule-V of the Rules is arbitrary and susceptible to bias? (Question of law). The petitioners argued ACR gradings are subjective and prone to change. The State argued the marking scheme is rational, supplements the written examination, and is not inherently arbitrary. 3. Whether the Rules are silent on the eligibility of probationary employees for the Limited Departmental Examination, leading to an anomaly regarding the five years' continuous clerical service requirement? (Question of mixed law and fact). The petitioners raised this as a potential anomaly. The State argued this grievance is speculative and premature as no petitioner has been denied participation on this ground. 4. Whether the advertisement dated 19.09.2023, based on the impugned provisions, is vitiated and deserves to be stayed? (Question of law). The petitioners argued the advertisement is founded on unconstitutional provisions. The State relied on a previous judgment of a coordinate bench rejecting a similar challenge.