MP HC Rejects Patwari Trainee’s Job Plea Despite Nine Months’ Training, As Computer Diploma Came After Cut-Off

The petitioner applied for the post of Patwari in District Datia.

He was selected for training, completed nine months of training and passed the final examination, but was not appointed.

After earlier proceedings, the respondents reconsidered his claim and rejected it because his computer diploma result was declared on 8 September 2008, after the 7 July 2008 cut-off date for applications.

The petitioner challenged that rejection, arguing that the diploma examination had been held in June 2008 and that similarly situated candidates had received appointments.

He sought reinstatement and consequential benefits.

Under the principles stated in Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar v. State of M.P., where no other cut-off date is prescribed, eligibility is assessed by reference to the last date for submitting applications; later circulars permitting submission of certificates do not extend the date by which the qualification must have been acquired.

The Court relied on Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar, Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Dipitimayee Parida v. State of Orissa for the rule that eligibility is ordinarily determined as of the prescribed date or, absent one, the application deadline.

A candidate who lacks the required qualification on that date is ineligible, and appointment contrary to the prescribed qualification cannot be justified or regularised; completing later stages of selection does not cure the deficiency.

Further, Article 14 does not permit “negative parity”: an allegedly unlawful benefit given to others does not entitle a candidate to the same benefit.

The Court treated 7 July 2008—the last date for submitting applications—as the applicable cut-off because no later date for acquiring the qualification had been prescribed.

Although the petitioner’s diploma examination took place in June 2008, its result was declared only on 8 September 2008; the Court therefore concluded that he had not acquired the requisite qualification by the cut-off date.

His selection for training, completion of training and success in the final examination did not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.

Nor could his claim succeed on the basis that other candidates had allegedly received appointments despite acquiring qualifications later, because that would amount to seeking negative parity.

It dismissed the writ petition as lacking merit and made no order as to costs.