Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 May, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 12106 of 2023
(ANAND YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 25-05-2023
Shri Anshul Tiwari - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Jitendra Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1.
Shri Aditya Pachori - Advocate for respondent no.2.
This petition is filed on the ground that preliminary examination was
conducted on 12/01/2020 by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission
for recruiting persons to various posts under the M.P. State Civil
Services.
Result of preliminary examination was declared on 21/12/2020. Petitioner
had cleared that exam then main exam was conducted between 21/2/2021
and 26/06/3/2021. Petitioner had cleared that main exam also for which result
was declared on 31/12/2021.
It is submitted that in the meanwhile, Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in W.P. No.542/2021 decided on 7th April, 2022 held that even
reserve category candidates are entitled to seek migration from reserve
category to general category on the basis of their merits, therefore, taking this
decision in consideration, respondents have revised the merit list and have held
petitioners to be not eligible even for main examination.
It is submitted that this exercise conducted behind back of the petitioner
has caused prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as earlier Hon'ble Division
Bench of this High Court in W.P. No.8750/2022 after considering the
judgment passed by another Division Bench in W.P. No.542/2021 on 7th April,
2022 vide its order dated 02/01/2023 held that preliminary examination is only a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 5/25/2023
6:10:37 PM
screening test and, therefore, migration will not be permissible.
Taking this judgment into consideration which has considered the earlier
judgment dated 7th April, 2022, it is submitted that revision of result of
the preliminary examination on a subsequent decision from a retrospective
effect is uncalled for.
Since petitioner has already qualified the main exam, he cannot be
debarred from undertaking the interview and that interview be made subject to
outcome of this writ petition.
Though this contention put forth by Anshul Tiwari, is challenged by
learned counsel for respondent No.2,-M.P. Public Service Commission, but,
prima facie, there appears to be substance in the arguments. Firstly, whether
the decision dated 7th April, 2022 can be applied retrospectively is the
moot question even if its validity as has been doubted by the subsequent
decision in W.P. No.8750/2022 is overlooked for the moment in hypothetical
manner. Secondly, the fact is that once petitioner had cleared the prelims and
main examination, then can he be debarred on the basis of the subsequent
judgment i.e. whether the decision dated 7th April, 2022 will have
retrospective application or will be prospective in nature. Third question
is that whether those candidates who were permitted to migrate presuming
the validity and correctness of the decision dated 7th April, 2022 to be intact,
then can the authorities still revise the result retrospectively or they are required
to create supernumerary slots for accommodating such migration without
adversely affecting the rights of the petitioners or similarly situated
persons who had cleared the prelims as per those parameters which were
applicable at the time of declaration of result and thereafter succeeded in main
Signature Not Verified
exam also.
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 5/25/2023
6:10:37 PM
These being the issues which needs to be answered by the respondents,
let respondents permit the petitioner to participate in the interview subject to the
outcome of this petition and file their additional reply within four week.
List this case along with W.P No.4783 of 2023.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
V. JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 5/25/2023
6:10:37 PM
