Jabalpur
The Supreme Court has properly represented the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, through which the arrangement was made that live registration of the Employment Office is not necessary for the recruitment of Police Constable. The Madhya Pradesh government had filed a special permission petition in the Supreme Court against the High Court order.
The Supreme Court canceled the special permission petition of the state government. During the hearing of the case, it was argued by the candidates selected to the post of constable that their candidature was canceled due to lack of live registration card of the employment office at the time of application of the petitioners.
Live registration card
The High Court, while passing an order in his favor, had said that it is not a mandatory condition of the employment office to have a live registration card of the Employment Office in deciding the eligibility, qualification or fitness of the candidate.
MP government disappointed
Consider for public employment is a fundamental right under Article-16 of the Constitution and cannot be limited by imposing unnecessary conditions, so applicants should be given jobs. The MP government had filed a special permission petition in the Supreme Court against this order, but it was disappointed.
Naib Tehsildar crossed the border and made it aware of the action
A single bench of Justice Vivek Jain of the High Court has sought a reply on the affidavit from Collector Jabalpur in the case of challenge to issue a stay order by Naib Tehsildar. In this connection, notices have been issued to Naib Tehsildar Shahpura and others in this connection. The High Court has questioned how the stay order was issued in favor of the non -applied despite the claim on a land on a land.
Since the case is very serious. Therefore, the collector should ensure the answer by giving an affidavit in four weeks. This is a episode of crossing the limit of rule. If the collector does not respond on time, he will be responsible for the action himself.
If the Naib Tehsildar has issued a stay order while misusing the post, then what action was taken against him, it will also have to be made aware of the court. On not presenting the answer, the Collector will have to be prepared by personally and will be prepared to give clarification.
Advocate Sachin Jain on behalf of the petitioner Rohan Lal Mehra presented that there was a dispute between the petitioner and Madan Lal, Lakhan Lal over a land in the village. The claim was presented in the civil court regarding this. At the same time, interim relief of stay order was sought, which was canceled by the civil court.
