{"id":3967,"date":"2010-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-07T17:50:40","modified_gmt":"2017-01-07T12:20:40","slug":"dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And … on 6 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And … on 6 October, 2010<\/div>\n
     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR\n\n                     Writ Petition No : 11403 of 2009\n\n                              Dr. Ashutosh Sharma\n                                     - V\/s      -\n                     School of Planning and Architecture,\n                             Bhopal and others.\n\nPresent :             Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.\n\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n              Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate, with Shri\n              H.K. Upadhyay for the petitioner.\n\n              Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, with Shri Mrigendra\n              Singh and Shri Arpan Pawar for the respondents.\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n        Whether approved for reporting:                              Yes \/ No.\n\n                                    ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                                    06\/10\/2010
\n              Challenging the orders – Annexure P\/15 and P\/17 issued by
\nrespondent No.1 on 21.10.09 and 23.10.09 respectively, withdrawing the
\noffer of appointment issued to the petitioner on the post of Professor in
\nthe School of Architecture, Bhopal, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
\n2-            Petitioner claims to be a duly qualified person and working
\nas a Professor in the Department of Architecture and Planning, in
\nMaulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘MANIT’). It is stated that he has worked in this Institute
\nfor the last twenty years. It is further the case of the petitioner that for
\nthe purpose of setting up an Autonomous School of Higher Education in
\nthe Faculty of Planning and Agriculture in the State of Madhya Pradesh,
\nGovernment of India established a School of Architecture – respondent
\nNo.1, in the State of MP, with its Headquarter at Bhopal in the form of a
\nSociety registered under the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam,
\n1973. That is how, respondent No.1 came into existence by virtue of the
\nRegistration made vide Annexure P\/1 on 7.10.08. It is stated that both –\n<\/p>\n
                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
MANIT and the School of Architecture and Planning, Bhopal, are
\nmanaged and controlled by the Government of India. Vide order-dated
\n1.8.08 – Annexure P\/2, Government of India approved creation of
\nvarious faculty and non-faculty posts in the School of Architecture,
\nBhopal. One of the posts so created was a post of Professor in the pay
\nscale 16400-450-22400. The essential qualification and other conditions
\nwere also prescribed and accordingly an advertisement – Annexure P\/3
\nwas issued on 3.3.09, calling for applications from deserving candidates
\nfor appointment to the said post i.e… Professor of Architecture.
\nPetitioner, who was also qualified and was eligible for appointment
\nsubmitted his candidature, the same was accepted and vide
\ncommunication dated 29.6.09 – Annexure P\/4 he was called to
\nparticipate in the process of selection and interview. Thereafter, vide
\ncommunication dated 2.7.09 – Annexure P\/5, petitioner was informed by
\nthe Director of the School – respondent No.1, that the Selection
\nCommittee having recommended his appointment and after due approval
\nof the Chairman and the Board of Governors, the petitioner has been
\nselected for appointment on the post of Professor in Architecture in the
\npre-revised pay scale of 16400-450-22400. Various other conditions
\nwere stipulated in the said offer. According to the petitioner, he accepted
\nthe offer and vide communication – Annexure P\/6 on 2.7.09, informed
\nrespondent No.1 that he will apply to the Director of his Institute,
\nnamely MANIT, for relieving him for joining in the respondent No.1’s
\nschool. Thereafter, vide Annexure P\/7 on 3.7.09 petitioner applied to
\nMANIT for relieving him so that he can join on the post of Professor in
\nthe School of Planning and Architecture, Bhopal. Thereafter, the
\nIncharge Registrar of MANIT, Bhopal sought various documents and
\ninformation from the petitioner, vide Annexure P\/8, petitioner clarified
\nthe position and ultimately when the petitioner was not given the
\nrelieving order, it is stated that vide Annexure P\/9 on 7.7.09 petitioner
\nsought for his relieving and in the alternative submitted his offer for
\nVoluntary Retirement in accordance to the provisions of Rule 48-A of
\nthe Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
‘Rules of 1972’), which is applicable to him and informed the MANIT
\nauthorities that he would stand retired after completing a period of three
\nmonths i.e… on 7.10.09. It is stated that in the application petitioner also
\nsought for relaxing the statutory notice period of three months to enable
\nhim to join the School of Planning and Architecture immediately by
\nvirtue of the powers conferred on the competent authority under Rule 48
\nof the Rules of 1972. Annexure P\/10 is another communication made by
\nthe petitioner on 15.7.09 seeking his relieving. According to the
\npetitioner despite his best efforts and submitting application for
\nVoluntary Retirement, neither was the Management of MANIT relieving
\nthe petitioner for joining duties nor were they accepting his offer for
\nVoluntary Retirement. In the meanwhile, the notice period for retirement
\nwas to expire on 7.10.09, petitioner suffered dengue fever, and was
\nadmitted to the Hospital from where he was discharged on 21.10.09. He
\nimmediately approached the School of respondent No.1 on 21.10.09
\nalongwith his joining letter and Attestation Form – Annexure P\/14.
\nInstead of permitting the petitioner to join in pursuance to the offer
\nsubmitted by him on 21.10.09, he was not permitted to join, instead
\ncommunication dated 21.10.09 was issued to him and it was intimated
\nthat as he has not submitted a proper relieving from MANIT, he cannot
\nbe permitted to join. Petitioner pleaded for extension and finally when he
\nwas not receiving cooperation he submitted an application – Annexure
\nP\/16 on 21.10.09 and in an arbitrary and illegal manner at 5.30 on
\n23.11.09, the impugned order-dated 23.10.09 – Annexure P\/17 was
\nissued, which was received by the petitioner on 26.10.09. He submitted a
\nrepresentation on 26.10.09 vide Annexure P\/16 and sought for
\nreconsideration of the matter. Thereafter, various communications took
\nplace and finally when nothing was done, petitioner filed this writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
3-           Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
\nthe petitioner, taking me through the voluminous documents filed in the
\nwrit petition so also the rejoinder and by taking me through the
\nprovisions of section 48(1), 48-A and the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
48-A, argued that when the application for voluntary retirement
\nsubmitted by the petitioner was not accepted within the period of three
\nmonths, then by operation of law and by virtue of the statutory
\nprovision, as is contained in the proviso to sub-rule (2) to Rule 48-A,
\npetitioner stood retired from the service of MANIT on 7.10.09 and after
\n7.10.09 it was not at all necessary for the petitioner to submit any
\nrelieving or any further letter or NOC from the Management of MANIT.
\nIt is stated that he is deemed to have retired from the service of MANIT
\non 7.10.09 by operation of law and, therefore, the insistence by
\nrespondent No.1 in seeking a proper relieving letter from the
\nManagement of MANIT was totally uncalled for and not at all
\nnecessary, after 7.10.2009.\n<\/p>\n
4-           It was emphasized by learned Senior Advocate that the
\nrelieving and other documents of relinquishing service by the petitioner
\nfrom MANIT would be necessary only if he was an employee of
\nMANIT when he reported for joining. It is stated that on 21.10.09 when
\nthe petitioner reported to respondent No.1 for joining and submitted his
\njoining vide Annexure P\/14, he was no more an employee of MANIT
\nand, therefore, the action of the respondents in insisting upon submitting
\na proper relieving letter is totally uncalled for. It was emphasized that by
\nvirtue of operation of the statutory provision as contemplated in the
\nRules of 1972, petitioner stood automatically relieved from the service
\nof MANIT with effect from 7.10.09 and, therefore, it was not necessary
\nfor him to submit any relieving order on 21.10.09 when he appeared
\nalongwith his joining – Annexure P\/14. Accordingly, it was the
\ncontention of the petitioner that he is deemed to have retired from
\nservices of MANIT on 7.10.09 and now the respondents cannot insist
\nupon submission of any document pertaining to his relieving. That apart,
\nShri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, took me through various
\ndocuments available on record and tried to emphasize that in this case
\nthe petitioner is being refused permission to join on the selected post of
\nProfessor of Architecture by the School of Planning and Architecture,
\nBhopal only on the ground that while petitioner was in service of
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
MANIT, Bhopal certain enquiries and criminal case were pending
\nagainst him. Taking me through the documents and material in this
\nregard filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition and the rejoinder,
\nShri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, tried to emphasize that the
\nallegations in this regard levelled against the petitioner are all false,
\nbaseless and are unsustainable. It is argued by him that in the criminal
\ncase registered prima facie finding recorded is that they are false and,
\ntherefore, in a matter pending before this Court under section 482 CrPC,
\nthe proceedings have been stayed. That apart, it is stated that the
\nallegations levelled against the petitioner in the return filed by
\nrespondents 1 and 2 are incorrect, false and on the basis of the same
\njoining of the petitioner cannot be denied. Even though Shri Ajay
\nMishra, learned Senior Advocate, during the course of hearing has
\nreferred to various documents in this regard, the same will be considered
\nand referred to, if necessary in this order, as and when they are required.
\n5-           In sum and substance, the contentions advanced by Shri
\nAjay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, is two folded:\n<\/p>\n
             (i)    His first contention was to the effect that once the
\n                    retirement of the petitioner came into force with
\n                    effect from 7.10.09 and he stood retired from the
\n                    services of MANIT by virtue of the statutory
\n                    deeming provision contemplated under Rule 48-A of
\n                    the Rules of 1972, there was no necessity for
\n                    submitting any relieving letter from the Management
\n                    of MANIT, and the action of the respondents in
\n                    refusing joining to the petitioner only on the ground
\n                    that   he   has   not   been   properly   relieved,   is
\n                    unsustainable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (ii)   His second limb of argument is that the petitioner
\n                    having retired from the services of MANIT on
\n                    7.10.09 without any enquiry being conducted against
\n                    him, without any punishment being imposed and
\n                    when the allegations put forth by respondents 1 and 2
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
                    against the petitioner with regard to his services in
\n                    MANIT are false and fabricated and on the aforesaid
\n                    grounds the Management of MANIT cannot refuse
\n                    joining to the petitioner
\n6-           In support of his contention, Shri Ajay Mishra, learned
\nSenior Advocate, has placed reliance on the following judgments: R.L.
\nArora Vs. The State of UP and others, AIR 1962 SC 764; M\/s
\nHochtief Gammon Vs. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1975 SC
\n2226; Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay and others Vs.
\nMahindra and Mahindra Limited and others, AIR 1984 SC 1182;
\nRajbir Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab and another 1999 (7) SLR 422;
\nand, Tekchand Vs. Dile Ram, 2001(3) SCC 290.\n<\/p>\n
7-           Referring to the aforesaid judgments and the deemed
\nretirement of the petitioner after expiry of the period of three months and
\nthe decision of the Board of Governors of respondent No.1’s Institute as
\ncontained in Annexure R\/7 dated 7.10.09, with regard to treating the
\npetitioner to be voluntarily retired, it is argued that now respondent No.1
\ncannot insist upon submission of any joining report. Further reference is
\nalso made to the judgment: Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The
\nChief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC
\n851, to contend that in the original communication made to the petitioner
\nvide Annexures P\/15 and P\/16, respondents have only stated that the
\npetitioner did not submit a proper relieving from the Management of
\nMANIT and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to join. Now, in this
\npetition respondent No.1 is substantiating its contention by giving
\nvarious other reasons with regard to conduct of the petitioner while
\nworking in MANIT. It is argued that a bad order issued vide Annexures
\nP\/15 and P\/17 cannot be made good by substituting reasons now in this
\npetition, which is by way of an after thought. Accordingly, learned
\nSenior Advocate submits that the action of the respondents is
\nunsustainable and is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
\n8-           Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the
\nrespondents, took me through the documents filed by the petitioner, the
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents, the pleadings of respondent No.1, particularly from
\nparagraphs 10 to 17 and by referring to the communications made by the
\nthen Director of MANIT on 21.11.08, forwarding the application of the
\npetitioner, submitted that initially one Shri K.S. Pandey was the Director
\nof MANIT. When the advertisement was issued and the petitioner
\nsubmitted his application, the same was forwarded by the Management
\nof MANIT through this Director vide Annexure R\/2, filed by respondent
\nNo.1, on 21.11.08. In the said communication while forwarding the
\napplication of the petitioner, the then Director Shri K.S. Pandey
\nintimated to the Director, School of Planning and Architecture that in
\ncase the petitioner is selected, he will be relieved for joining the
\nrespondent No.1’s Institute on deputation as per the Institute’s norms.
\n9-           Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, referring to the
\nstatutory provisions with regard to relieving and joining of an employee
\nfrom the service of MANIT i.e… Statute No.24 of the NITP – Annexure
\nR-3\/1 and by referring to the proforma contained in Schedule D to
\nStatute 24(7), pertaining to forwarding of application for employment,
\nemphasized that the application of the petitioner apart from being
\nforwarded to be appointed on deputation did not meet the requirement of
\nthe statutory provisions as indicated hereinabove, in as much as
\ncomments with regard to conduct and working of the petitioner in
\nMANIT, which was required to be disclosed alongwith the application as
\nper the statutory Schedule D, was not intimated. Learned Senior
\nAdvocate submitted that the forwarding itself was contrary to the
\nstatutory provisions and illegal and various factors, which should have
\nbeen brought to the notice of respondent No.1 were not brought on
\nrecord. It was argued by Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, that
\neven if it is assumed that by operation of the provisions of Rule 43-A of
\nthe Rules of 1972, the voluntary retirement of the petitioner is accepted,
\neven then if the past antecedents and the conduct of the petitioner with
\nhis previous employer was not satisfactory, respondent No.1 can refuse
\njoining to the petitioner. It was emphasized by him that insistence on
\nsubmitting a joining or proper relieving letter from the previous
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
employer was for the purpose of ascertaining the previous conduct of the
\npetitioner and to ensure that he had an unblemished service with the
\nprevious employer and is fit to join duties with the new employer. By
\ntaking me through the overwhelming documents available on record, a
\nreport pertaining to enquiry conducted by one Mr. M.R. Buch, a retired
\nIAS Officer of the State, the allegations found proved against the
\npetitioner and various other factors with regard to registration of a
\ncriminal case against the petitioner, conduct of enquiry, writ petition
\nfiled by him challenging the action of MANIT, in finding him to be
\nillegally appointed and reverting him and the criminal cases pending
\nagainst him, argued that in the attestation form submitted by the
\npetitioner vide Annexure R\/13, petitioner did not disclose all these
\nfactors and, therefore, he was rightly denied joining by the Management
\nof the School of Planning and Architecture, Bhopal.
\n10-          Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, referring to
\nvarious letters in this regard, available on record particularly the
\ncommunication made by the Director of MANIT to the School of
\nPlanning and Architecture – respondent No.1, as contained in Annexure
\nR\/6 dated 1.9.09, submitted that the then Director Dr. K.S. Pandey had
\nillegally forwarded the application of the petitioner vide Annexure R\/2,
\non 21.11.08, without disclosing the fact about pendency of large number
\nof cases against him and the particulars as are contained in Annexure
\nR\/6, and pointed out that in two enquiries conducted into the matter –
\none by Shri M.N. Buch and another on an enquiry headed by Shri S.M.
\nShukla, various irregularities committed by the petitioner came into
\nlight. Referring to the enquiry reports filed in this regard as contained in
\nAnnexure R-3\/15, Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, tried to
\nemphasize that due to the aforesaid serious allegations, the petitioner is
\nnot entitled to seek appointment with respondent No.1 and respondent
\nNo.1 can refuse appointment to the petitioner. In this regard, he referred
\nto the averments made by respondent No.1 in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and
\n14 of the reply, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
“11. That on 21.10.2009, the petitioner in person appeared
\nbefore the Respondent No.2 and submitted letter dated
\n21.10.2009 alongwith the attestation form, informing that
\nthe petitioner has applied for voluntary retirement in the
\nparent institute on 7.7.2009 and as per the rules he stood
\nretired w.e.f 7.10.2009. The petitioner also submitted that as
\nhe was suffering from acute dengue fever, he could not
\nsubmit the attestation form on 9.10.2009. Copy of the letter
\ndated 21.10.2009 alongwith the attestation form submitted
\nby the petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure R\/9.\n<\/p>\n
12.   It is pertinent to mention here that it is vide letter
\ndated 21.10.2009, the answering respondent for the first
\ntime were acknowledged by the petitioner that he is joining
\nthe institute as permanent faculty member, however, the
\nforwarding letter of the Director, MANIT and further
\ncommunication with the petitioner before the letter dated
\n21.10.2009 written by the petitioner, clearly depicts a
\npicture that the petitioner was supposed to join the institute
\non deputation after submitting a letter of relieving from the
\nparent institute as it has been done by the institute in case of
\nDr. Manmohan Kapshe and various other employees.\n<\/p>\n
Needless to emphasis, there was no reason with the
\nanswering respondent to give a differential treatment to the
\npetitioner, particularly when the offer of appointment to the
\npetitioner itself elapsed. It is worthwhile to mention here
\nthat the petitioner has submitted that he was suffering from
\nacute dengue fever and was discharged from the hospital on
\n22.10.2009, however, prior to his discharge the petitioner
\nappeared before the Respondent No.2 on 21.10.2009 itself,
\nthus the character of the petitioner is clearly ascertainable
\nfrom his misdeeds. Copy of the relieving letter dated
\n12.10.2009 and the appointment letter dated 20.10.2009 of
\n                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
            Dr. Manmohan Kapshe are annexed herewith as Annexure
\n            R\/10 and R\/11.\n<\/p>\n
            13.   That before the answering respondent could have
\n            scrutinized the application and the attestation form, the
\n            petitioner again appeared in person before the Respondent
\n            No.2 on 21.10.2009 itself in the evening hours and
\n            requested in writing to withdraw and joining letter with a
\n            request to treat them cancelled. Resultantly, the respondent
\n            returned the application and other original documents of the
\n            petitioner on 21.10.2009 itself. However, the aforesaid fact
\n            has deliberately been suppressed by the petitioner for the
\n            reasons best known to him. Copy of the letter dated
\n            21.10.2009 written by the petitioner is annexed herewith as
\n            Annexure R\/12.\n<\/p>\n
            14.   That, bare perusal of the attestation form submitted
\n            by the petitioner (filed alongwith Annexure R\/13) will
\n            reveal that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact in
\n            the attestation form that the petitioner is in litigation with
\n            his parent institute and as such the appointment of the
\n            petitioner as Assistant Professor and promotion as Professor
\n            in the MANIT, Bhopal is subject matter of Writ Petition
\n            No.7382\/2008 and Writ Petition No.8573\/2008 pending
\n            adjudication before this Hon’ble Court and decision as such
\n            in any petition will disqualify the petitioner from
\n            appointment as Professor in the establishment of the
\n            answering respondent. Copy of the attestation form
\n            submitted by the petitioner is annexed herewith as
\n            Annexure R\/13.”\n<\/p>\n
                                            (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
11-         It was further argued by Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior
\nAdvocate, that as far as respondent No.1 is concerned, before appointing
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
a person, respondent No.1 is entitled to verify the antecedents of the
\nperson to be appointed and when the overwhelming material that came
\nagainst the petitioner indicated his unsuitableness, respondents have
\ntaken a decision to withdraw the offer of appointment. Referring to
\nAnnexure P\/16 itself filed by the petitioner, withdrawing his joining,
\nsubmitted on 21.10.09, learned Senior Advocate, argued that the
\npetitioner himself having withdrawn the original joining alongwith all
\noriginal documents, petitioner is now estopped from seeking permission
\nto join with respondent No.1 and challenge the action of respondent
\nNo.1 in withdrawing the offer of appointment.\n<\/p>\n
12-          Referring to the order passed by this Court on 13.1.2009,
\nShri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that initially when
\nthis writ petition was filed, only respondent No.1 – The School of
\nPlanning and Architecture, was impleaded as a party and the
\nManagement of MANIT was not impleaded as a party. However, after
\nthe hearing on 13.1.2010, this Court wanted to consider three aspects of
\nthe matter, namely: the manner in which the application of the petitioner
\nwas forwarded by MANIT to respondent No.1; the manner in which his
\napplication for voluntary retirement was dealt with by MANIT; and, the
\nparticulars with regard to cases, if any, pending against the petitioner
\nwhile he was working in MANIT. To get clarification about these three
\nquestions, it is stated by Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, that
\non 13.1.2010, this Court directed the petitioner to implead MANIT –
\nrespondent No.2, as a party and that is how at the instance of this Court,
\npetitioner impleaded MANIT as a party and from the reply filed by
\nMANIT, it is seen that they have clearly pointed out that the application
\nof the petitioner – Annexure R\/2 dated 21.11.08 was forwarded without
\nfollowing the procedure contemplated under Statute 24 and Shri K.S.
\nPandey having suppressed material facts to help the petitioner and the
\npetitioner also having suppressed these facts while submitting the
\nattestation form, it is stated that the petitioner cannot claim any benefit.
\nIt is also pointed out by Shri R.N. Singh that alongwith the petition for
\nappointment to various other post, applications of certain other
\n                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
employees were also forwarded for appointment on deputation. By
\nbringing on record the forwarding memorandum with regard to one Dr.
\nManohar Kapse and the relieving order issued in his case, permitting
\nhim to join duties in the School of Planning and Architecture on
\ndeputation vide Annexures R\/10 and R\/11, Shri R.N. Singh emphasized
\nthat respondent No.1 are right in denying appointment to the petitioner
\non the ground that his antecedents with the previous employer was not
\nsatisfactory, he has suppressed material facts from the Management of
\nrespondent No.1, while submitting his application, getting it forwarded
\nalongwith Shri Manohar Kapse, and finally while submitting the
\nattestation form as is evident from Annexure R\/13. Referring to
\nAnnexure R\/13, the attestation form filed by the petitioner and the
\nwarnings contained therein with regard to suppression of material facts,
\narrest of the petitioner in a criminal case, pendency of the criminal case
\nand various other factors, Shri R.N. Singh emphasized that no relief can
\nbe granted to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
13-            In support of his contention to the effect that without
\nproducing a discharge certificate, an employee cannot be permitted to
\njoin services, Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, invited my
\nattention to the principles laid down in the cases of: Kendriya
\nVidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003(3)
\nSCC     432;     A.P.   Public   Service   Commission       Vs.   Koneti
\nVenkateswarulu and others, 2005(7) SCC 177. That apart, learned
\nSenior Advocate also invited my attention to a judgment of the Supreme
\nCourt in the case of – Central Provident Fund Commissioner and
\nothers Vs. Ashok Dubey and others, 1992 (2) SCC 196, to justify the
\naction of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to join duties.
\nAccordingly, Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, tried to justify
\nthe action of the respondents and submitted that the petition is liable to
\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
14-            By way of a rejoinder and arguments Shri Ajay Mishra,
\nlearned Senior Advocate, again referred to various documents available
\non record, particularly the reports of the enquiry conducted, the manner
\n                                     13<\/span><\/p>\n
in which the enquiries were conducted, the criminal case filed against
\nthe petitioner, the facts that these are filed only to victimize and harass
\nthe petitioner, they are not correct, tried to emphasize that the allegations
\nlevelled against the petitioner and the material submitted by respondent
\nNo.2 are not correct and on the basis of the same petitioner cannot be
\ndenied joining.\n<\/p>\n
15-          It was further argued by Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior
\nAdvocate, that the respondents while considering the matter after the
\ncommunication was made by the New Director – Shri R.P. Singh, with
\nregard to the antecedents of the petitioner, an agenda was prepared and
\nthe entire matter was placed for considering the additional agenda –
\nAnnexure R\/7, in the meeting of Board of Directors of School of
\nPlanning and Architecture, Bhopal, which was held on 17.7.09. In the
\nsaid meeting, even though the Board was aware of the complaints
\nagainst the petitioner, but did not take any action, instead extended the
\ntime to submit the joining after following the provisions of the CCA
\nRules. In view of the above, it was argued by learned Senior Advocate
\nthat the Board of Directors in this meeting having already ignored and
\ncondoned the earlier conduct of the petitioner, now on the same ground
\nappointment cannot be refused to the petitioner. That apart, he submitted
\nthat the provisions of Statute 24(7) and Schedule D will not apply as it
\nwas brought into force after the forwarding of petitioner’s application
\nwas done, vide Annexure R\/2 on 21.11.08. Accordingly, on the aforesaid
\nground Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, seeks for
\ninterference into the matter.\n<\/p>\n
16-          I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
\nperused the records.\n<\/p>\n
17-          As far as the question with regard to the deemed retirement
\nof the petitioner from the services of MANIT with effect from 7.10.09
\nand the implication of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 43-A is
\nconcerned, there is no dispute in accepting the proposition put forth by
\nShri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, to the
\neffect that the petitioner stood relieved on 7.10.09 and on that date he
\n                                      14<\/span><\/p>\n
ceased to be an employee of MANIT. However, the question that
\nrequires consideration by this Court is that even on such relinquishment
\nof appointment by the petitioner with his previous employer, can the
\nprospective employer still insist upon producing a relieving order; what
\nis the relevancy of such a relieving order; and, whether the act of
\nrespondent No.1 in withdrawing the offer of appointment in the facts and
\ncircumstances is warranted or not?\n<\/p>\n
18-          During the course of hearing of this writ petition, Shri Ajay
\nMishra, learned Senior Advocate, took me through the documents
\navailable on record and had tried to emphasize that the allegations
\nlevelled against the petitioner are not correct and on the basis of the
\nsame he cannot refuse permission to join. That being so, it is thought
\nappropriate at this stage to refer to these allegations as they may have
\nsome bearing with regard to the act of respondent No.1.
\n19-          It is an admitted fact that when the application of the
\npetitioner was forwarded by Dr. K.S. Pandey vide Annexure R\/2, on
\n21.11.08, it was so mentioned by him in the forwarding memo “In case
\nhe is selected, he will be relieved on deputation as per Institute’s norms”.
\nHowever, while forwarding the application in this manner, the
\nrequirement of National Institute of Technology Act, 2007 and the
\nprovisions of Statute 24(7), contained in Schedule D i.e… Annexure R-
\n3\/1 is not followed. This Statutory provision contemplates that an
\napplication of an employee whose conduct is under investigation may be
\nforwarded for employment. However, it has to be done with a brief
\ncomment on the nature of allegations and with a ‘note’ that he would not
\nbe relieved if he is placed under suspension or charge-sheeted. The
\nforwarding note – Annexure R\/2 submitted in the case of the petitioner
\nwas not in accordance to the statutory requirement. As far as
\napplicability of Statute 24(7) and non-communication of the past
\nantecedents of the petitioner by Shri K.S. Pandey is concerned, the
\nargument of the respondents in this regard cannot be accepted, for the
\nsimple reason that the statutory provision came into force after the
\napplication of the petitioner was forwarded by Shri K.S. Pandey on
\n                                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
21.11.08 and, therefore, on the ground that Shri K.S. Pandey did not
\nfollow the statutory provisions of Statute 24(7), no fault can be found in
\nthe forwarding of the petitioner’s application by Shri K.S. Pandey.
\nHowever, as the forwarding was with regard to relieving the petitioner
\non deputation in case of his appointment, Shri K.S. Pandey should have
\ninformed the management of respondent No.1 about the pendency of the
\nvarious enquiries against the petitioner. However, records indicate that
\nagainst Shri K.S. Pandey also serious allegations were levelled as is
\nevident from Annexure R-3\/2 onwards and finally the documents filed
\nby respondent No.2 indicates that the services of Shri K.S. Pandey have
\nbeen terminated.\n<\/p>\n
20-          After termination of service of Shri K.S. Pandey when a
\nnew Director – Shri R.P. Singh took charge and when the petitioner was
\ninformed about his offer of appointment, he applied to the Management
\nof MANIT to relieve him for joining on the offered post. When these
\nfacts were brought on record, the Director concerned found that the
\napplication of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Professor or
\nArchitecture in respondent No.1’s Institute was forwarded by Shri K.S.
\nPandey ignoring the norms as contained in Statute 24(7), Schedule D
\nand, therefore, the said Director vide Annexure R\/6 on 1.9.09 informed
\nrespondent No.1 about the enquiries being conducted against the
\npetitioner, the reports submitted by Shri M.N. Buch, Shri S.M. Shukla –
\nthe allegations against the petitioner as are contained in this
\ncommunication. The allegation pertaining to the irregular appointment of
\nthe petitioner himself contrary to the Rules and his reversion to the post
\nof Assistant Professor and the challenge made to the same and the writ
\npetitions in this regard, pending before this Court. Further irregularities
\ncommitted in the matter of revision of pay scale, misuse of the office of
\nthe Administrative Dean by the petitioner, illegal benefits conferred to
\nhis brother by appointing him in MANIT, registration of criminal case
\nagainst the petitioner, his arrest by the police authorities on 7.1.09,
\nregistration of a case against him for offence under sections 507, 120,
\n420, 467, 469, 471\/34 of the IPC read with various provisions of the
\n                                     16<\/span><\/p>\n
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
\n1989; his release on bail on 15.1.2009, filing of the challan and the
\napplication filed by him for quashing of the proceedings. The Director
\nbrought to the notice of respondent No.1 all these factors and after these
\nfactors were brought to the notice on 9.9.09, the Management of
\nRespondent No.1 directed the petitioner that he should submit his joining
\nalongwith an appropriate relieving letter on or before 23.10.09 otherwise
\nthe offer would be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
21-          If the impugned orders – Annexures P\/15 and P\/17 are
\ntaken note of, it would be seen that in Annexure P\/15 dated 21.10.09,
\npetitioner was informed that he has not submitted his joining alongwith
\nthe relieving letter from the present employer and in the board meeting
\nof the School of Planning and Architecture held on 17.7.09, it was
\nresolved that the joining can be permitted only if the CCA Rules are
\nviolated. Even though respondents took note of the fact that the
\npetitioner is deemed to have retired, but on 21.10.09 and 23.10.09 they
\nwere still insisting upon submitting a proper relieving from the previous
\nemployer. Petitioner wants this Court to hold that the allegations levelled
\nagainst the petitioner by the Management of MANIT are incorrect and
\nfalse and as respondent No.1 has refused joining to the petitioner only
\nbecause he did not submit a proper joining and as the joining was not
\nnecessary now, in view of the automatic deemed retirement of the
\npetitioner by operation of law with effect from 7.10.09, the action is
\nliable to be quashed. As far as the contentions canvassed by Shri Ajay
\nMishra, learned Senior Advocate, with regard to condonation of the
\nconduct of the petitioner by the Board of Directors of the School of
\nPlanning and Architecture, in its meeting held on 17.7.09 is concerned,
\nthis Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned
\nSenior Advocate. Even though the Board in its meeting, held on 17.7.09,
\ndirected for extending the time for joining, the Board still insisted upon a
\nproper relieving of the petitioner from MANIT. This was because of two
\nreasons: the first being that the application of the petitioner was
\nforwarded with a condition that he shall join the appointed post on
\n                                    17<\/span><\/p>\n
deputation; and, the second was because of the reason that the petitioner
\nwould be permitted to join only if he is properly relieved, meaning
\nthereby that the Management of School of Planning and Architecture
\nwere willing to permit the petitioner to join duties provided he is
\nrelieved by the Management of MANIT, by exonerating him of all the
\ncharges levelled against him and issuing him a proper relieving letter, or
\non deputation as is done in the case of Dr. Manmohan Kapshe. The
\ndecision of the Board in its meeting held on 17.7.09 is to the effect that
\npetitioner should join alongwith a proper relieving letter meaning
\nthereby that the Management of School of Planning and Architecture has
\nno objection if the petitioner is relieved by the Management of MANIT,
\nif he is exonerated of the allegations levelled against him and is given a
\nclean chit or is sent on deputation. The insistence upon petitioner’s
\njoining alongwith a relieving letter is only to ensure that the MANIT
\nManagement gives a clean chit to the petitioner, after exonerating him of
\nthe charges pending against him in their Institute. Merely because the
\nBoard of Directors in its meeting held on 17.7.09 did not cancel the
\nappointment of the petitioner or withdrew it after coming to know about
\ncomplaints against the petitioner, it cannot be construed that the Board
\nhad condoned all the past acts of the petitioner while in employment
\nwith MANIT. The Board seems to be of the view that they can permit
\nthe petitioner and others to join, if they are properly relieved and come
\nwith a properly relieving order or a NOC from the erstwhile employer.
\nAccordingly, the contention of Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior
\nAdvocate, to the effect that the Board of Directors of the School of
\nPlanning and Architecture, had exonerated the petitioner of his past
\nconduct cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
22-         Under normal circumstances when an employment is
\noffered to a person, he is directed to submit a proper relieving from his
\nprevious employer in order to ensure that his lien on the post held with
\nthe previous employer is terminated and he is appointed after
\nrelinquishing his previous employment or he is on deputation. That
\napart, an employee who was already in service with one employer and
\n                                     18<\/span><\/p>\n
when he seeks appointment with a new employer, the new employer has
\na right to ensure that the person being appointed has an unblemished
\nservice record, his employment with the previous employer was clean
\nand he is a fit person to be appointed. An employer before appointing a
\nperson to a post should have confidence in the employee and if this
\nconfidence is not existing, the employer has a right to refuse
\nappointment to such a person, whose employment with the previous
\nemployer is a tainted one. In this regard, it may be appropriate to take
\nnote of certain observations and principles laid down by the Supreme
\nCourt in the case of Dr. H.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India and others,
\n1994 (Supp) 1 SCC 250. In this case, a candidate selected for
\nappointment by UPSC and who was issued with an offer of appointment,
\nwith a stipulation for joining within a particular period of time, was
\nrefused joining when subsequently it came to the notice of the employer
\nthat a CBI Enquiry was initiated against him. In this case also, the Union
\nof India, the employer, was not aware of the pendency of the enquiry
\nagainst Dr. H. Mukherjee, the person concerned, and when it came to
\nits knowledge, it withdrew the offer of appointment. After considering
\nthe factual aspects of the matter, in paragraph 4, the question for
\ndetermination was laid down by the Supreme Court in the following
\nmanner:\n<\/p>\n
            “4.      In view of the above, the short question which arises
\n            for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in
\n            taking     the   view    that   events   subsequent   to   the
\n            recommendation made by the UPSC could not be taken into
\n            consideration for deciding whether or not the candidate
\n            recommended was suitable for appointment and whether the
\n            omission on the part of the ACC to state the reason for
\n            departing from the recommendations of the UPSC was fatal
\n            and vitiated the decision.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              (Emphasis supplied)
\n            Thereafter, various judgments of the Supreme Court were
\nconsidered and after taking note of the provisions of Article 323 of the
\n                                    19<\/span><\/p>\n
Constitution and the powers of the UPSC for making a recommendation
\nand the effect of such recommendation being rejected by the
\nGovernment, it has been held by the Supreme Court that in view of the
\nfact that a recommendation of the UPSC is not binding and by taking
\ninto   consideration   developments     subsequent   to    the   selection,
\nappointment can be refused or rejected. In paragraph 8, the matter has
\nbeen so dealt with by the Supreme Court:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “8.         ….     There is nothing in that article or in the
\n             rules to suggest that the Government cannot take into
\n             consideration the developments subsequent to the selection
\n             made by the UPSC. Such a view would not be in public
\n             interest and may lead to serious complications if the
\n             Government is enjoined to make the appointment
\n             notwithstanding certain serious matters having come to its
\n             notice subsequent to the recommendation made by the
\n             Commission.      Counsel   for   Respondent    1,   however,
\n             submitted that a line of demarcation must be drawn
\n             somewhere because the Government cannot be allowed to
\n             delay its decision till adverse circumstances appear against
\n             the candidate recommended for appointment. He submitted
\n             that this demarcation must coincide with the date on which
\n             the recommendation is made by the Commission and at any
\n             rate must be confined to a reasonable period subsequent
\n             thereto. We are afraid no hard and fast line can be drawn in
\n             this connection. Besides, in the instance case we do not find
\n             as a fact that the Government has deliberately delayed its
\n             decision. …..”                   (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
             Thereafter, taking note of certain judgments of the Supreme
\nCourt in paragraph 9, with regard to the binding effect of Article 323 of
\nthe Constitution with regard to advice of the UPSC. It was held by the
\nSupreme Court in paragraph 9:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                      20<\/span><\/p>\n
            “9.      ….      This decision is not an authority for the
\n            proposition that the Government must make an order
\n            disapproving the list along with the reasons therefore and
\n            convey the same to the High Court or the Commission. All
\n            that it says is that the Government must record its reasons
\n            for the disapproval on the file and if its action is questioned
\n            in court it must disclose the same to the court if called upon
\n            to do so. That requirement has been satisfied in the present
\n            case. The Tribunal, however, wrongly thought that
\n            subsequent events could not be taken into consideration and
\n            that is why it directed the ACC to reconsider its decision
\n            without noticing the adverse entry as well as the contents of
\n            the CBI Report. In fact to satisfy ourselves we perused the
\n            file and found that the reason for disapproval was stated on
\n            the file. The subsequent decision turned on its own facts as
\n            the Court came to the conclusion that the material placed
\n            before the Court did not justify Government’s refusal to
\n            make the appointment. Therefore, neither of the two
\n            decisions on which reliance is placed come to the rescue of
\n            respondent 1. It seems well settled that the function of the
\n            Public        Service   Commission   being    advisory,    the
\n            Government may for valid reasons to be recorded on the
\n            file, disapprove of the advice or recommendation tendered
\n            by the Commission, which decision can, if at all, be tested
\n            on the limited ground of it being thoroughly arbitrary, mala
\n            fide or capricious.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                             (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
            If the aforesaid judgment is scanned, it would be seen that if
\nthe subsequent material brought to the notice of the Government
\nindicates that the employee is unsuitable for appointment, the offer of
\nappointment can be withdrawn.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   21<\/span><\/p>\n
23-         Again, in the case of Union of India Vs. Rati Pal Saroj
\nand another, 1998(2) SCC 574, the employee concerned was offered
\nappointment in the IAS Cadre, but before he could join as Probationer, a
\nCBI case was registered against him with regard to abuse of official
\nposition in the previous employment. In view of the above, the offer of
\nappointment was withdrawn. The withdrawal was challenged on
\nsomewhat similar grounds and also on the ground of violation of
\nprinciples of natural justice and various other aspects. The matter was
\nconsidered by the Supreme Court in paragraph 11:\n<\/p>\n
            “11. In the present case looking to the facts and
\n            circumstances it was not necessary to give a hearing to the
\n            respondent. It is argued that the withdrawal of appointment
\n            was on account of the FIR filed against the respondent and,
\n            therefore, the respondent should have been heard and given
\n            an opportunity to present his case before withdrawing his
\n            appointment. Or his appointment should be kept in
\n            abeyance till he is found guilty or acquitted. The earlier
\n            correspondence, however, shows that the respondent was
\n            unable to join as a probationer on the due date because he
\n            was not being relieved from his post. The Central
\n            Government thereafter learnt why the respondent was not
\n            being relieved from his post. If thereafter it came to a
\n            conclusion that the respondent was not a suitable person, or
\n            that it was not possible to wait for a long period for the
\n            respondent to join, it would be entitled to withdraw the
\n            appointment. Indian Administrative Service is a premier
\n            administrative service of the Central Government. All those
\n            who are members of the Indian Administrative Service are
\n            called upon to discharge heavy responsibilities which
\n            require on the part of an incumbent to the post the highest
\n            degree of probity, rectitude and an impeccable character. If
\n            in the facts and circumstance of the present case the Central
\n            Government decided that the respondent was unsuitable to
\n                                    22<\/span><\/p>\n
            be given a post in the Indian Administrative Service, the
\n            question cannot be faulted. The impugned letter merely
\n            withdraws the offer of appointment. It casts no stigma. So
\n            long as the decision is taken bona fide on relevant facts and
\n            in the interests of the Service it cannot be faulted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              (Emphasis supplied)
\n            In the aforesaid case also, looking to the nature of
\nappointment and the conduct of the person to be appointed, the Supreme
\nCourt has held that the offer of appointment can be withdrawn. In the
\npresent case also, somewhat similar scenario exist.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
24-         In the present case, petitioner’s appointment with
\nrespondent No.1 is cancelled and the offer of appointment withdrawn
\ndue to various factors, which came to the knowledge of respondent No.1,
\nas is evident from the narration of facts made hereinabove.
\n25-         Contention of the petitioner is that respondents have
\ncancelled the offer of appointment only because petitioner did not
\nproduce an appropriate relieving order from his previous employer –
\nrespondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioner that a relieving order
\nfrom the previous employer is not necessary by virtue of the fact that
\npetitioner had tendered his voluntary retirement from his previous
\nemployer in accordance to Rule 48(2) on 7.7.2009 and by operation of
\nlaw i.e… the proviso to sub-clause (2) of Rule 42-A, the resignation is
\ndeem to have come into effect with affect from 7.10.2009, and once the
\npetitioner’s retirement comes into effect with affect from 7.10.2009,
\nthere is no necessity for submitting a relieving order from his previous
\nemployer, as the lien on the post held by the petitioner with the previous
\nemployer i.e.. respondent No.2 has come to an end due to retirement
\nhaving come into force with effect from 7.10.2009.\n<\/p>\n
26-         As far as retirement coming into affect with effect from
\n7.10.2009 and petitioner’s contention that the lien to the post of the
\nprevious employer comes to an end on that day is concerned, there is no
\ndispute in accepting the aforesaid proposition canvassed by learned
\nSenior Counsel Shri Ajay Mishra. However, when the question pertains
\n                                     23<\/span><\/p>\n
to appointment of a person to a particular post, the requirement of
\nseeking a proper relieving order from the previous employer, the purpose
\nand the intention behind the same has to be appreciated. Petitioner may
\nbe right in contending that normally once his employment with the
\nprevious employer comes to an end by virtue of his retirement and,
\ntherefore, there is no question of relieving, but in a particular case, when
\nan employment is offered to a person by the employer – respondent No.1
\nin the present case, the new employer is entitled to verify the previous
\nantecedents of the person, who is being appointed and after being
\nsatisfied about his service record with the previous employer, can take a
\ndecision regarding his appointment. If the previous record of service of
\nthe person concerned with his erstwhile employer is found to be tainted
\nor not free from doubt, the new employer may have reservations in the
\nmatter and may not have confidence in appointing such a person. Having
\nconfidence in a person to be appointed is of paramount importance for
\nentering into a contract of service and if the employer feels that the
\nperson to be appointed is not beyond reasonable doubt or his career with
\nthe previous employer is covered by a cloud of suspicious activities, is
\ntainted and is not in accordance to the conduct expected of a prudent
\nemployee, the employer has an option to reject the candidature for
\nappointment of such a person. It is in the backdrop of these
\ncircumstances that the question of insisting upon relieving, is to be
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
27-           Even though during the course of hearing Shri R.N. Singh,
\nlearned Senior Advocate, had referred to the attestation form submitted
\nby the petitioner and by placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the
\ncase of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) had argued that
\npetitioner has suppressed material facts while submitting the attestation
\nform, Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, had refuted the
\naforesaid and by referring to Annexure to the attestation form, had
\nsubmitted that the facts were disclosed. Now, in the light of the findings
\nrecorded hereinabove, the said question need not be gone into.\n<\/p>\n
                                     24<\/span><\/p>\n
28-          Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and the
\nprinciples laid down by the Supreme Court, in the cases of Dr. H.
\nMukherjee (supra) and P. Saroj (supra) and the facts and circumstances
\nof the present case, this Court does not find any arbitrariness or illegality
\nin the action of the respondents, impugned in this writ petition
\nwarranting interference. The respondents are well within their rights in
\nwithdrawing the offer of appointment, when they are satisfied about the
\npast conduct of the petitioner and the subjective satisfaction of the
\nrespondents in assessing the past conduct of the petitioner and holding it
\nto be such that it disentitles the petitioner to join the establishment of
\nrespondent No.1 cannot be termed as an arbitrary or illegal decision
\nwarranting interference by this Court in exercise of its limited
\njurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
\nRespondent No.1 has given reasonable justification for their impugned
\naction and this Court cannot sit over the said decision as if it exercises
\nappellate jurisdiction. Respondent No.1 having refused to enter into a
\ncontract of service with the petitioner for the reasons indicated
\nhereinabove, a writ of mandamus cannot compel respondent No.1 to
\nenter into a contract, contrary to their wishes.\n<\/p>\n
29-          Accordingly, finding no justification for interfering into the
\nmatter, this petition is dismissed without any order so as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ( RAJENDRA MENON )
\n                                                    JUDGE
\nAks\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And … on 6 October, 2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No : 11403 of 2009 Dr. Ashutosh Sharma – V\/s – School of Planning and Architecture, Bhopal and others. Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ————————————————————————————– Shri Ajay […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And ... on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And ... on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-07T12:20:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And … on 6 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-07T12:20:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":7833,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And ... on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-07T12:20:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And … on 6 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And ... on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And ... on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-07T12:20:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And … on 6 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-07T12:20:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010"},"wordCount":7833,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010","name":"Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And ... on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-07T12:20:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashutosh-sharma-vs-school-of-planning-and-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.Ashutosh Sharma vs School Of Planning And … on 6 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3967","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3967\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}