Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pratyush Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
[1]
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH,
AT JABALPUR
(DIVISION BENCH)
WP No.5901/2019
Ashita Dubey & Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
WP No.3757/2020
Shantilal Joshi & Ors. & Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
WP No.16552/2019
Pratyush Dwivedi
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
WP No.20293/2019
Lokendra Gurjar
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence :
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner (WP No.5901/2019 and
WP No.16552/2019)
[2]
Mr. Brahmendra Pathak Advocate for the petitioner (WP
No.3757/2020)
Mr. Rameshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner (WP
No.20293/2019)
Mr. Purushaindra Kaurav, Advocate General and Shri R.K. Verma,
Additional. Advocate General for the respondents/State.
Mr. Prashant Singh, Senior Advocate Advocate with Shri Anshul
Tiwari, counsel for the respondent-MPPSC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R (Oral)
(13.7.2021)
Per: Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice
1. Under challenge in all these writ petitions is the validity of Madhya
Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyo, Anusuchit Janjatiyo Evam Anya
Pichhade Vargo Ke Liye Arakshan) Sansodhan Adhyadesh, 2019 promulgated
on 8th March, 2019, which later on became the Madhya Pradesh Lokseva
Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 2019, as a result of which, the reservation in favour of
OBC category has been raised from 14% to 27% thereby raising the outer
limit of the reservation from 50% to 63%.
2. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed an
interim order in WP No.5901/2019 on 31.1.2020, which has since then
remained in operation. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-
"Accordingly, after hearing the learned counsels, it is
directed that, it shall be open for the Public Service
Commission to go ahead with the selection process. However,
the same shall not be finalized and no appointments shall be
made without prior permission of the High Court."
[3]
3. IA No.5654/2021 has been filed by the State Government in WP
No.5901/2019 and another IA No.5601/2021 has been filed on behalf of the
State Public Service Commission in WP No.16522/2019, with a common
prayer that in view of the ongoing second wave of Coronavirus and
apprehended third wave, the State Government/Public Service Commission
may be allowed to notify the result of the selection and make appointment on
vacant posts of Medical Officer Class-II. It is submitted that as per the
requisition submitted to the MPPSC, an advertisement dated 5.12.2020 was
published for appointment of the Medical Officer (Medical) and Medical
Officer (Non-medical) in the Department of Home, Madhya Pradesh
advertising 4 posts, out of which 2 posts are for Open Category and 2 posts
for OBC Category. Similarly, another advertisement was issued on 8.2.2021
notifying 727 vacancies for appointment of Medical Officer in the
Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, out of which 253 posts are
reserved for ST, 401 posts are reserved for OBC and 73 posts are reserved for
EWS, which includes 83 posts reserved for ST (Female), 132 for OBC
(Female) and 24 posts for EWS females. Moreover, 44 posts are reserved for
candidates having Locomotor Disability. Prayer has been made in both the
aforementioned Interlocutory Applications that the aforesaid interim order
dated 31.01.2020 passed by this Court may be suitably modified and the
respondents may be allowed to notify the result of the aforesaid two
selections by providing reservation to the candidates of OBC only up to 14%,
keeping the posts for 13% increased reservation vacant and make
appointment accordingly.
[4]
4. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.
No.20293/2019 and WP No.3757/2011 have submitted that they have in their
writ petitions also challenged the reservation of 10% provided to the
candidates of Economically Weaker Sections of Citizens, which if added to
the overall percentage of reservation including 27% reservation provided to
the OBC, the total reservation would far exceed the limit of 50% , thus, taking
the total reservation to as highest as 73%, in breach of the ratio of the
Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney etc.
etc. vs. Union of India and others, etc. (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217.
5. However, Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Advocate General submitted that
reservation provided to EWS stands on different footing than the reservation
provided to OBC as it has the backing of the Articles 15(6) and 16(6) and
therefore, the two cannot be equated.
6. Having regard to the submissions made and considering that the
hearing and final disposal of the writ petitions may take time, we are inclined,
for the time being, to modify the order dated 31.1.2020 passed in WP
No.5901/2019, allowing the State Government as well as Public Service
Commission to go ahead with the process of selection and publish the list of
all the categories including reservation to the extent of only 14% to the
candidates of OBC and proceed accordingly to issue appointment on the posts
of Medical Officers. It is further directed that a stipulation may be made in the
appointment order of the candidates appointed against the posts reserved for
EWS Category that their appointment shall be provisional, subject to final
outcome of the writ petitions.
[5]
7. Accordingly, the IA No.5654/2021 (in WP No.5901/2019) and IA
No.5601/2021 (in WP No.16522/2019) stands disposed of.
8. This Court on 17.2.2021 required the learned counsel for the parties to
file the written submissions and further directed that WP No.5901/2021 shall
be treated as a lead case while the learned Advocate General submitted that
the reply filed by the State in that case shall be adopted in other matters too.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General
are now again required to file their written arguments alongwith the case law
they seek to rely, positively within a period of fortnight.
10. IA No.8457/2020 filed in WP No.5901/2019 for taking documents on
record is considered and allowed. The documents are taken on record.
11. IA No.425/2021 filed in WP No.3757/2020, is an application for
intervention is also allowed. The intervernors are permitted to intervene in the
matter.
List all these matters alongwith connected matters on 10.8.2021.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
skm
Digitally signed by SANTOSH
MASSEY
Date: 2021.07.14 10:52:47
+05'30'
