Arvind Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13973 MP

                                                                1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT GWALIOR
                                                         WP No. 6324 of 2023
                                     (ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 25-08-2023
                                  Shri Siddarth Sharma- Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate and Shri M.S. Jadon -
                           Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

Heard on the question of interim relief.

The instant petition has been filed being aggrieved by the amendment letter No.01/SET/Exam/2023 dated 17.1.2023, whereby the advertisement

No.01/SET/Exam/2023 dated 8.1.2023 was amended up to the extent of revocation of the benefit of reservation of 5% to Economical Weaker Section (EWS) in the Education Eligibility Test.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the advertisement Annexure P/2 dated 8.1.2023 clause 22 had submitted that as on the date of issuance of the advertisement the candidate of EWS category were given relaxation of 5% in their educational qualification and the marks obtained, but on 17.1.2023 the said clause was deleted from the advertisement which had caused great prejudice to the petitioner alike as the same amounted to change

of the rules of the game after the game has been played/started. It was further argued that there may be two eventualities; (1) alteration with regard to the eligibility criteria of the candidates seeking employment and (2) the method and manner of making the selection of the suitable candidates, and in the case of first eventuality which is the case herein in so far as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned the said revocation of clause 22 could not be permitted. To bolster his submission he has placed reliance in the matter of K. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 25-08-2023 07:06:31 PM

Manjushree Vs. State of Andhra Pradsh and others, 2008 (3) SCC 512 and in the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, (2013) 4 SCC 540, whereby similar controversy was referred to a larger Bench and in the month of July, 2023 probably the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already constituted the Larger Bench.

Per Contra Shri Ravindra Dixit and Shri M.S. Jadon, Government Advocate submits that the advertisement was issued on 8.1.2023 and the last date of filling up of the form with late fees was 21.3.2023, but till date the petitioner has not submitted his form and he had waited till the last and as the exam is going to be conducted on 27th August, 2023 the relief as prayed by

the petitioner cannot be acceded to and should not be granted. It was further submitted that prior to filling up of the forms which was from 27.1.2023, on 17.1.2023 itself the condition no.22 appended to the advertisement was revoked on the basis of a letter No.F-4-9/90 (NET) dated 7th October, 2022 issued by the UGC NET Bureau, thus, it cannot be said that during the midst of the game the Rules have been changed. It was further argued that it was very well within the knowledge of the petitioner that the said clause has been revoked against which he could have approached this Court much before and prayed for interim relief, but since it was not prayed, therefore, at this juncture he is not entitled for any kind of relief. It was lastly argued that any relief which amounts to final relief could not be granted as an interim measure and on this count also the application for ad interim writ deserves to be rejected.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others (supra) after considering the judgment of K. Manjusree (supra) and State of of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 had Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 25-08-2023 07:06:31 PM

referred the matter to the Larger Bench. In the penultimate paragraph the three Member Bench in the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) has observed that no doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the rules of the game insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in the case of C. Channabhasavaiah Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 1293 in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results and whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the rules of the game stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court.

In the light of the aforesaid when this aspect has already been referred to a Larger Bench, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination. Subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, the respondent no.2-P.S.C. is directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination. In this regard the respondent no.2-P.S.C is directed to accept the form of the petitioner by tomorrow on payment of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) towards late fees as provided in clause 8 of the advertisement and issue the admit card to the petitioner to appear in the examination which is going to be held on 27th August, 2023.

Since respondents have already made their appearance through counsel, therefore, they are directed to file return in the matter within a period of four weeks.

List the matter immediately after four weeks.

E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 25-08-2023 07:06:31 PM

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Pawar

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 25-08-2023 07:06:31 PM