Swati Mourya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7041 MP

                                                                  1
                                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                           AT INDORE
                                                               BEFORE
                                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                                          ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2022

                                                    WRIT PETITION No. 6808 of 2021

                                        Between:-
                                        SWATI MOURYA D/O SHRI GYANDAS MOURYA,
                                        AGED    ABOUT   24   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                        STUDENT HOUSE NO 707, SCHEME NO 136,
                                        VIJAY NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                 .....PETITIONER
                                        (BY SHRI AMIT RAJ, ADVOCATE)

                                        AND

                                1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                        ANIMAL   HUSPANDRY AND     VETERNITY
                                        SERVICE,  VALLABH BHAWAN    (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                2.      D I R E C T O R DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL
                                        HUSBANDRY KAMDHENU BHAWAN, VAISHALI
                                        NAGAR, SULTANABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                3.      CONTROLEER PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION
                                        BOARD, BHOPAL CHAYAN BHAWAN, MAIN
                                        ROAD NO. 1 CHINAR PARK EAST BHOPAL
                                        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                                        (BY MS. VINITA PHAYE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
                                        (BY SHRI MANU MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
                                        NO.3)

                                      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                following:
                                                                    ORDER

Signature Not Verified SAN

01. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

Digitally signed by JAGDISHAN "(i) That, the Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the AIYER Date: 2022.05.12 17:21:37 IST

candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (AVFO) under the General Category Femal Quota and the Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the Name of the Petitioner in the Select Candidates List under the General Category (Open for all) Candidates, at the event of Securing Higher Marks by the Petitioner then the General Candidates under Open Category Quota.

(ii) That, the Impugned action/inaction of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner may kindly be quashed by directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, (AVFO) under the General Category Female

Quota, and the Respondents may kindly be directed to include the Name of the Petitioner in the Select Candidatures List in light of the Marks secured by the Petitioner and also in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Saurav Yadav and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 1034.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deed fit may also be kindly given to the petitioner along with cost and oblige."

0 2 . The apprehension of the petitioner is that in the selection process in which the petitioner is also a candidate M.P. Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013 particularly Rule 12 shall not be followed since the same was not followed by respondents as on previous occasion also.

03. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has made a categoric statement that the aforesaid Rule 12 shall positively be followed in the matter and there shall not be any deviation from the same. Signature Not Verified SAN

04. The said statement of learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is Digitally signed by JAGDISHAN AIYER Date: 2022.05.12 17:21:37 IST taken on record in view of which the petition stands disposed off.

C.C. as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Aiyer

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by JAGDISHAN AIYER Date: 2022.05.12 17:21:37 IST