Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Sunil Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 4633 of 2022
(DR. SUNIL BHADORIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated : 10-03-2022
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.
1/State.
Shri R.D.Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri Sangam Jain, learned counsel
for respondent No. 2-MPPSC.
Heard on admission as well as interim relief.
Instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, who appears to be a
candidate in response to advertisement issued by respondent No. 2-MPPSC on
1/2/2022 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon and
petitioner is apprehending rejection of his application on the ground that he belongs
to Economically Weaker Section of Society and is aged 42 years, therefore, he
may not be given benefit of age relaxation which is given to other reserved
category (SC/ST/OBC and other categories of Horizontal Reservation) till age of
45 years. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the advertisement dated 1/2/2022
which is in respect of present appointment and also refers the notification in
respect of advertisement issued for appointment for civil services and both the
notifications carry same set of reservation and age relaxation and while considering
this aspect in respect of civil services, Division Bench of this Court at Jabalpur
passed an interim order dated 8/2/2022 in W.P.No. 2108/2022 ( Sanjay Singh
Parihar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.); whereby, Division Bench allowed the
candidate belonging to category of EWS to appears in the selection process while
availing the benefit of age relaxation of age up to 45 years provisionally and /or as
interim measure. He seeks parity.
Learned AAG for the State on the basis of instructions received submits that
there is no such age relaxation contemplated in respect of reservation given to
EWS.
Learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2-MPPSC submits that it is a
policy decision and in policy matters such interference cannot be made. He
referred certain judgments passed by this Court from time to time to submit that
age relaxation cannot be given.
Heard.
Considering the rival submissions, for maintaining the parity vis-a-vis order
dated 8/2/2022 (supra) and the fact that last date of filling up the form is 14th
March, 2022, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to apply for the same.
Respondent No. 2-M.P. Public Service Commission is directed to accept the
application of the petitioner without reference to the qualification on age but
subject to compliance of other conditions. The application will be accepted on the
aforesaid condition and subject to further orders to this Court.
Since the respondents already caused their appearance, therefore, they are
directed to file return within four weeks.
It is made clear that no equity can be claimed by the petitioner because of
this interim order and matter shall be heard on its own merits, if reply is filed.
List after four weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) (SATISH KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
JPS/-
Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
JAI PRAKASH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633f4c
fb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a,
SOLANKI
pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB2193780D
8357,
serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8C014
33EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Date: 2022.03.10 16:50:01 +05'30'
