Dinesh Kumar Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1082 MP

                         1                        WP-1337-2023




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT JABALPUR
                       BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
                             &
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
                      th
             ON THE 18 OF JANUARY, 2023

             WRIT PETITION No. 1337 of 2023


BETWEEN:-

DINESH KUMAR RAJAK S/O SHRI MAHESH KUMAR
RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB, R/O 1145 LAL MATI DWARKA NAGAR
JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                                .....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI RAMESHWAR SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE AND SHRI VINAYAK
PRASAD SHAH - ADVOCATE )

AND

1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
       AND   LEGISLATION,   VALLABH   BHAWAN
       BHOPAL (M.P.)

2.     HIGH COURT OF M.P., PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
       JABALPUR, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL

3.     PRINCIPAL     SECRETARY,      GENERAL
       ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,    VALLABH
       BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)

                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                                     2                            WP-1337-2023




      (RESPONDENTS/STATE       BY   SHRI    PIYUSH    JAIN   -   GOVERNMENT
      ADVOCATE )



      This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SHEEL
NAGU passed the following:
                                    ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by an OBC candidate aspiring for the post of Assistant Grade-III in the District Court Establishment, for which advertisement Annexure P/1 dated 12.11.2021 has been issued.

2. The sole ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner despite securing more marks than the marks secured by unreserved category candidate who was last in the list of qualified candidates in the Preliminary Examination, has not been allowed to migrate from the reserved category list to the unreserved category list. As such it is submitted that the petitioner was not held qualified to appear in the main examination which is yet to be held.

3. This Court while dealing with an identical contention had decided the issue against the petitioner in a judgment rendered on 02.01.2023 in W.P. No.8750/2022, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience :

"15. The tenability of the right of reserved category candidate to migrate at the stage of Preliminary Examination where merit is not assessed, needs to be looked at from a different angle in the following terms.

15.1 The concept of migration or mobility of a reserved category candidate to unreserved category list is 3 WP-1337-2023

exclusively founded on the concept of merit. It is an undeniable fact that Preliminary Examination in question are meant to shortlist larger number of candidates down to a manageable number to be then subjected to Main Examination. Thus, the object and purpose of Preliminary Examination is not to assess the comparative merit of the candidates, but merely to shortlist/screen them to be subjected to Main Examination where alone comparative merit is assessed. The clauses of the advertisement in question, as reproduced supra, expressly reveal this intention of the Examining body. In none of these petitions said clauses have been challenged. The Main Examination is the one where comparative merit of candidates is assessed and the select list prepared thereafter is the one where right to migrate can be claimed by reserved category candidates securing equal or more marks than the last unreserved category qualified candidate. 15.2 The concept of migration which is purely merit centric cannot be made available to be availed by reserved category candidates at the stage of Preliminary Examination in which comparative merit of the candidates is not assessed. The migration therefore can be applied in the examination where comparative merit is assessed which herein is not the Preliminary Examination.

15.3. If right to migrate is permitted to be availed by reserved category candidate at the stage of result of Preliminary Examination then that would violate the very foundation on which the concept of migration stands. If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, then an anomalous situation would arise where candidates who have not been subjected to any comparative assessment on merit are allowed to invoke the principle of migration which is founded solely on merit.

16. In view of above discussion, what comes out loud and clear is that merit centric concept of migration 4 WP-1337-2023

cannot be invoked at the stage of Preliminary Examination in which comparative merit of the candidates is not assessed/tested. In the instant case, as prescribed in the terms and conditions of advertisement in question, right to migration will certainly be available to reserved category candidates on the declaration of result of Main Examination and not at the declaration of Preliminary Examination result.

17. Accordingly, both the questions framed by this Court in Para 6 (supra) are answered in the negative.

18. Consequent upon the aforesaid, instant petition being meritless is dismissed as such without cost."

4. In view of above, the issue raised herein is no more res integra. The petition stands dismissed in line with the aforesaid decision. No cost.

         (SHEEL NAGU)                                            (VIRENDER SINGH)
            JUDGE                                                      JUDGE

DV

Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2023.01.19
16:38:47 +05'30'