NITESH KUMAR PANDEY versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 07-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
NITESH KUMAR PANDEY
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1215 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 07, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
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]
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 646
646
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
647
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
NITESH KUMAR PANDEY v. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
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 cand

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.