Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aditi Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 November, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
&
SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No. 480 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. ADITI TIWARI,
D/O SHRI CHANDRA KANT TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED,
VILLAGE GHURETHA, WARD NO.11,
MAUGANJ, REWA, DISTRICT: REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAHAK TIWARI, D/O SHRI
SANTOSH TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 21
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE
DASPURVA, POST LALGAON, REWA
DISTRICT: REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SWATI TRIPATHI, D/O SHRI
PRABHA SHANKAR TRIPATHI, AGED
ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE
BADHAI KI PATI, POST BARAHULA,
TEHSIL TEONTHAR, REWA
DISTRICT: REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. MEENU DEVI KUSHWAHA, D/O
SHRI UMESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O
WARD NO. 17, NAGENDRA NAGAR,
NEAR SATYANAND SARASWATI
SCHOOL, HUZUR, REWA, DISTRICT:
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
5. DEEPIKA PATEL, D/O SHRI OM
PRAKASH PATEL, AGED ABOUT 21
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE
NEGURIHA, REWA, DISTRICT: REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BHARTI PATEL, D/O SHRI
DEVENDRA PRASAD PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O KHAJURHA
KALAN REWA, DISTRICT: REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. ARCHANA SHARMA, D/O SHRI
SHRIKANT SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O H. NO. 15/134
SAMAN SANJAY NAGAR, HUZUR,
REWA, DISTRICT: REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. POOJA PANDEY, D/O SHRI ANIL
KUMAR PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O H. NO. F-3.
NAGAR NIGAM COLONY, MAJHAN
MOD, WAIDHAN, SINGRAULI,
DISTRICT: SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. BHUVNESHWARI MEHRA, D/O SHRI
JIYA LAL MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 24
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O WARD NO. 12, JAY
PRAKASH NAGAR, NEAR STATION
AMLAI AMLAI COLLIERY, SHAHDOL
DISTRICT: SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. RAKHEE SINGH, D/O SHRI RAM
BAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O BHATNI TOLA,
3
VILLAGE AND POST UMRI, TEHSIL:
SIRMOUR, DISTRICT: REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. ANJLEE MISHRA, D/O SHRI
SHESHMANI MISHRA, AGED ABOUT
21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED R/O WARD NO. 1,
DAGDAIYA NEAR HAND PUMP,
GRAME DAGDAIYA, POST: GARDHA
138, THANA: JAWA, REWA DISTRICT:
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. TANYA SINGH, D/O SHRI VINEET
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O
WARD NO. 16/435 UMAHAT HUZUR,
REWA, DISTRICT: REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
13. SANDHYA SINGH, D/O SHRI RAM
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O
WARD NO. 10, VILLAGE JUDWANI,
POST OFFICE KUMHRA, SIRMOUR,
REWA, DISTRICT: REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
14. NEHA DWIVEDI, D/O SHRI
SARVADAMAN DWIVEDI, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE
DHUDHAKI, POST KANDAILA, TEHSIL
MANGAON SIRSA, REWA, DISTRICT:
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. ABHIRUCHI NAMDEV, D/O SHRI
BRIJENDRA KUMAR NAMDEV, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O 976 WARD NO. 15,
NEAR TEMER PETROL PUMP,
RATAHARA, HUZUR, REWA,
DISTRICT: REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4
16. MANSI BARETHA, D/O SHRI
CHHOTE LAL BARETHA, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O H. NO. 1073, WARD
NO. 3, NEAR TALAB, VILLAGE AND
POST: BAIKUNTHPUR, SIRMOUR,
REWA DISTRICT: REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
17. SAKSHI SHUKLA, D/O SHRI
RAJESH KUMAR SHUKLA, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O H. NO. 124, WARD
NO. 10, NEAR NAHAR, VILLAGE AND
POST: HATAWA, REWA DISTRICT:
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
18. PUSHPANJALI SINGH, D/O SHRI
MOTI LAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 24
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O WARD NO. 13,
VILLAGE AND POST MAJHIGAWAN
REWA, DISTRICT: REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
19. MOHNI SINGH, S/O SHRI
DEVENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 23
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O WARD NO. 12
MADHAIKALAN, REWA, DISTRICT:
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
20. RAJWATI GUPTA, D/O SHRI
SHESHMAN GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 21
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O H. NO. 198, WARD
NO. 16, VILLAGE: BELWA, SURASARI
SINGH, POST KHAIRAHAN TEHSIL:
SIRMOUR, REWA, DISTRICT: REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI N.S. RUPRAH, ADVOCATE)
AND
5
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH, THROUGH: PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, MADHYA PRADESH POLICE
HEAD QUARTER, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION,
BOARD BHOPAL, THROUGH
CHAIRMAN CHAYAN BHAWAN, MAIN
ROAD NO. 1 CHINAR PARK (EAST),
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUYASH THAKUR, LEARNED GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE AND SHRI RAHUL DIWAKAR, LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This writ appeal coming on for hearing this day, Shri Justice
Sujoy Paul, Judge passed the following :
JUDGMENT
With the consent finally heard.
2. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order of learned
Single Judge, passed in W.P.No.8757/2022 dated 26.04.2022,
whereby learned Single Judge by taking into account and e-mail
sent by respondent No.3 dismissed the petition by holding that
petitioners apprehension that without forwarding the requisite
number of candidates for second stage of selection, they have been
unduly disqualified stand satiated.
3. Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that all the appellants/petitioners are woman candidates. As per
clause 1.15.2, in the next stage of examination, one candidate is
eligible to submit one candidature only. In the second stage, for
every group, the five times of number of candidates as per 'caste'
and 'category' shall be invited. The same inference can be drawn
clause 1.15 (6). In addition, Shri Ruprah relied upon M.P. Civil
Services (Special Provisions for appointment of woman) (Rules
of 1977) and urges that as per Rule 3 of the said Rules, it is
obligatory on the part of respondents to reserve certain number of
posts for woman candidates. The said reservation shall be horizontal
and compartment wise.
4. The next submission is based on Gazette Notification dated
17.11.2015 by which aforesaid Rules of 1997 were amended, and
the percentage of reservation for woman was enhanced to 33%
(except for Forest Department).
5. Shri Ruprah, Advocate submits that learned Single Judge
while passing the impugned order only considered the e-mail sent by
respondent No.3. In the e-mail, there was no bifurcation of posts on
the basis of 'Caste' and 'Category'. The Court considered the
number of posts enbloc and on the basis of that calculation, non
suited the present appellants/petitioners. If the learned Single Judge
would have considered the bifurcation of posts as per aforesaid
Clauses and Rules, the appellants would have been in a position to
show that they would have been called and would have been within
the zone of consideration for the second phase of the selection.
6. The aforesaid pivotal aspect has not been considered by
learned Single Judge. In this view of the matter, the order impugned
may be interfered with and matter may be remitted back to the writ
Court to consider the aforesaid vital aspects.
7. Shri Suyash Thakur, learned Government Advocate and Shri
Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 have
opposed the prayer.
8. Shri Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel for the respondent No.3
submits that this point raised by learned counsel for the appellant
that the vacancies are to be calculated on the basis of each caste and
category was not raised before learned Single Judge. Thus, a plea
abandoned cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before
Writ Appellate Court. For this reason alone, Writ Appeal deserves to
be dismissed.
9. Faced with this, Shri Ruprah, Advocate submits that this plea
was very well raised in the Para-1 and Para-6.2 of the Writ Petition.
Even if, plea was abandoned, it can be raised before the Writ
Appellate Court.
10. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated
above.
11. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
12. It is apposite to quote the relevant Rules on which Shri
Ruprah has placed reliance.
1-15-2 vxys pj.k dh ijh{kk gsrq vkWuykbZu ijh{kk dh esfjV
lwph%&
¼1½ ,d mEehnokj dks ,d vkosnu djus dh ik=rk gksxhaA
n~~forh; pj.k gsrq vkWuykbZu ijh{kk esa izkIr vadks ds vk/kkj ij
mEehnokjksa dks izR;sd lewg ds fy;s tkfr oxZ ds vuqlkj
fjfDr;ksa ds 5 xquh la[;k esa cqyk;k tkosxkA
¼6½ izksQs'kuy ,Dtkfeus'ku cksMZ Hkksiky n~~okjk mEehnokjksa dks
vkWuykbZu ijh{kk essa izkIr vadks ds vk/kkj ij tkfr oxZ vuqlkj
fjDr inksa ds 05 xquk laa[;k esa jksy uEcj ds dze esa p;u lwph
iqfyl eq[;ky; ds ek/;e ls p;u lfefr;ksa dks miyC/k djkbZ
tkosxhA tkfr oxZ vuqlkj 05 xquh la[;k ds vafre mEehnokj
ds cjkcj vad izkIr djus okys lHkh mEehnokjksa dks n~~forh;
pj.k dh ijh{kk dk volj fn;k tkosxk] Hkys gh dqy la[;k 05
xquk ls vf/kd gks tkosA
Rules of 1977:
3. Reservation of posts for women.- Notwithstanding
anything contained in any service Rules, there shall be
reserved thirty percent of all posts in the service under
the State in favour of women at the stage of direct
recruitment and the said reservation shall be horizontal
and compartment-wise. Explanation.- For the purpose of
this rule "horizontal and compartment-wise reservation''
means reservation in each category, namely Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classess and
General.
lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx
ea=ky;] oYyHk Hkou] Hkksiky
Hkksiky] fnukad 17 uoEcj 2015
dz- lh &3&8&2015&,d&3-&Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn
309 ds ijUrqd }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx esa ykrs gq,]
e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky] ,rn~~}kjk] e/;izns'k flfoy lsok
¼efgykvksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq fo'ks"k mica/k½ fu;e]1997 esa
fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/ku djrs gSa] vFkkZr~%&
la'kks/ku
mDr fu;eksa esa] fu;e 3 esa mi fu;e¼1½ ds LFkku ij
fuEufyf[kr mi fu;e LFkkfir fd;k tk,] vFkkZr~%&
¼1½ fdUgha lsok fu;eksa esa] fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh] jkT; ds
v/khu lsok esa lh/kh Hkjrh ds izdze ij leLr inksa ds ¼ou
foHkkx dks NksMdj½ rSarhl izfr'kr in efgykvksa ds fy,
vkjf{kr jgsaxs rFkk mDr vkj{k.k leLrj vkSj izHkkxokj
¼gkWfjtsUVy ,.M dEikVZesaVokbt½ gksxkA
13. A plain reading of impugned order passed by learned Single
Judge shows that the Writ Petition was dismissed solely based on
the e-mail information given by the respondent No.3 which was
reproduced in the said order. However, learned Single Judge has not
recorded his satisfaction about the exercise of calculation of
vacancies undertaken by respondent No.3 on the anvil of aforesaid
Rules.
14. In (2007) 7 SCC 206 Bongaigaon Refinery &
Petrochemicals and others Vs. Girish Chandra Sarma, the Apex
Court held that if a plea is abandoned before the learned Single
Judge, even then it can be raised before the Writ Appellate Court
because it is continuation of the original order passed by learned
Single Judge in writ jurisdiction. Thus, principle of 'estoppel' cannot
be pressed into service.
15. In our opinion, one of the pivotal question raised by the
appellants before the Writ Court was regarding calculation of
vacancy on the basis of 'category'. The learned Single Judge has not
considered the aspect of calculation on the basis of 'category' and
'caste'. Thus, we deem it proper to set aside the order dated
26.04.2022 and restore W.P.No.8757/2022 to its original number so
that parties can raise all the possible grounds and argue the matter
on merits.
16. We order accordingly.
17. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case.
18. At this stage, Shri Ruprah, Advocate submits that selection is
in the pipeline and therefore, writ petition deserves to be heard at the
earliest. We have no doubt that the learned writ court will make
endeavour to decide the pending writ petition expeditiously.
19. Writ Appeal is disposed off.
(SUJOY PAUL) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vai
Digitally signed by
VAISHALI AGRAWAL
Date: 2022.11.18 17:08:24
+05'30'
