Ravi Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 14331 MP

                                                    1
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
                                           ON THE 4th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                                        WRIT PETITION No. 23801 of 2022

                               BETWEEN:-
                          1.   RAVI YADAV S/O SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH, AGED
                               ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONSTABLE
                               GD ROLL NO. 24320217 POSTED PRESENT SISF
                               SOHAGPUR ANUPPUR 10TH BNSAF SAGAR
                               DISTT. SAGAR M.P. ROLL No.24320217.

                          2.   ANMOL GUPTA S/O SHRI PURUSHOTTAM, AGED
                               ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONSTABLE
                               GD POSTED PRESENT SISF SOHAGPUR
                               ANUPPUR 10TH BNSAF SAGAR DISTRICT
                               SAGAR ROLL NO. 24373542 DISTRICT SAGAR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.   SAURABH DWIVEDI S/O SHRI SURYAMANI
                               DWIVEDI,     AGED   ABOUT    29   YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION:     CONSTABLE   GD   POSTED
                               PRESENT 6TH BNSAF JABALPUR M.P. ROLL NO.
                               24293355 JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.   LOKESH SINGH S/O SHRI ISWAR SINGH, AGED
                               ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONSTABLE
                               GD POSTED PRESENT 6TH BNSAF JABALPUR
                               M.P. ROLL NO. 24190382 JABALPUR (MP)

                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                               (BY SHRI VP SINGH, ADVOCATE)

                               AND
                          1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               THE    PRINCIPAL    SECRETARY    HOME
                               DEPARTMENT     MANTRALAYA     VALLABH
                               BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)

                          2.   THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
                               HEAD QUARTER S JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.   THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE
                               (SELECTION) P.H.Q. JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANZOOR
AHMED
Signing time: 11/4/2022
4:47:52 PM
                                                               2
                                   (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.       THE COMMANDANT 10TH BNSAF SAGAR
                                   DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.       THE COMMANDANT 6TH BNSAF JABALPUR
                                   DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                                   (BY MS. PRIYANKA MISHRA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

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

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a representation of the subject matter of this petition is pending before the respondents. He has also

drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-P/3 which is the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7663/2021 (Praveen Kumar Kurmi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) wherein the Supreme Court, in a case of similarly situated candidate held that a person from the reserved category, though falling within the eligibility of the general seat on account of his high merit, should not be placed to a disadvantageous position as regard the service and post viz-a-viz a candidate who may be placed below him.

Under the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the representation within a period of 60 days in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7663/2021, and also in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others (1996) 3 SCC 253 . If the case of the petitioners are similar to the case of the appellants in Civil Appeal No.7663/2021, then similar benefits be extended to the petitioners herein.

With the aforesaid, the petition is finally disposed of.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 11/4/2022 4:47:52 PM

The Court makes it clear that it has not passed any observations on the merits of the case and the said representation be decided strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations of this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE Ansari

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 11/4/2022 4:47:52 PM