Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Poorti Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8043
1 WP-20315-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 20315 of 2024
DR. ANU BALA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta- learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Ravindra Dixit- learned counsel for respondent No.4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 15476 of 2024
DR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta- learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Ravindra Dixit- learned counsel for respondent No.4/MPPSC.
WRIT PETITION No. 15488 of 2024
DR POORTI PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAHUL SINGH
PARIHAR
Signing time: 4/9/2025
5:04:52 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8043
2 WP-20315-2024
Shri Pratip Visoriya - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta- learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Ravindra Dixit- learned counsel for respondent No.4/MPPSC.
WRIT PETITION No. 15493 of 2024
DR. PRATIBHAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta- learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Ravindra Dixit- learned counsel for respondent No.4/MPPSC.
WRIT PETITION No. 20316 of 2024
DR NEETU SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta- learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Ravindra Dixit- learned counsel for respondent No.4/MPPSC.
ORDER
1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners
have filed these writ petitions challenging the advertisement dated
30/12/2022 (Annexure P/1) to the extent it does not prescribe the benefit of
25% reservation for Guest Faculty candidates. They have also prayed for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8043
3 WP-20315-2024
issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit
of 25% reservation in favour of the Guest Faculty candidates pursuant to
order dated 06/10/2023.
2. Regard being had to the similitude of the issue involved in this
batch of writ petitions, they are heard analogously and decided by this
common order. For convenience sake, facts of Writ Petition No.20315/2024
are taken into consideration.
3. The facts necessary for decision of this batch of writ petitions are
that respondent/MPPSC issued an advertisement dated 30/12/2022 inviting
applications for the post of Assistant Professor in various disciplines in
Higher Education Department. In the advertisement, last date for submission
of the applications was 19/03/2023. The last date was extended in order to
include the information regarding State Eligibility Test (SET) vide
corrigendum dated 18/12/2023. While the recruitment process was going on,
the Higher Education Department, State of M.P. issued order dated
06/10/2023 (Annexure P/2) wherein, in respect of guest faculty candidates, it
has extended the benefit of relaxation in age to the extent of ten years and
has also directed reservation of 25% posts for these candidates. It is gathered
from order dated 06/10/2023, Clause (i) relates to reservation of 25% posts
while clause-(ii) relates to grant of age relaxation. It is pertinent to note here
that in both the clauses, it has been mentioned that "पद का आर ण आगामी 03
भत व ापनेा तक सीिमत रखा जाएगा."
4. Since the benefit of order dated 06/10/2023 was not extended by the
State Government to the ongoing recruitment process commenced pursuant
to advertisement dated 30/10/2022, a writ petition was filed before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8043
4 WP-20315-2024
Principal Bench of this Court which was subject matter of Writ Petition
No.3709/2023. The petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench
on 19/10/2023 and on the basis of concession given by the Deputy Advocate
General that the benefit of age relaxation pursuant to order dated 06/10/2023
shall be extended to the petitioners, writ petition was disposed off. Evidently,
no law was discussed in this order and the petition was simply disposed off
based upon the concession given. The Division Bench disposed off W.P.
No.3709 of 2023 with the following order:-
"The learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on
record the order issued by the Government of Madhya
Pradesh, Higher Education Department, Bhopal dated
06.10.2023 wherein the Government has granted certain
age relaxation to the concerned persons therein.
In view of the same, it would appear that the petitioners'
grievance has been answered in terms of the aforesaid
order. Even the petitioners would be entitled to take
benefit of the said order.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions are disposed
off.
Pending interlocutory applications are accordingly
disposed off."
5. Yet another writ petition was filed before the Principal Bench of this
Court which was subject matter of Writ Petition No.875/2024. The petitioner
therein challenged the criteria of maximum age limit prescribed in
advertisement dated 30/12/2022. Since, he was not allowed to participate in
selection process on account of his overage, he sought for direction to the
respondents to allow him to participate in the selection process. The
relaxation in age criterion was sought for based upon the order, dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8043
5 WP-20315-2024
06.10.2023, issued by Higher Education Department, State of M.P. The
Division Bench, after hearing the parties, held that circular/order dated
06/10/2023 is prospectively applicable. In other words, the prayer for
applying benefits of order, dated 06.10.2023, for ongoing process
commenced pursuant to advertisement dated 30.12.2022, was declined. Para
5 & 6 to order dated 11/01/2024 passed in Writ Petition No.875/2024 being
relevant are reproduced herein :
"5. Now the petitioner is willing to take advantage of a
subsequent circular issued by the Government in
October, 2023 which is not applicable to the
advertisement which was issued on 30.12.2022. The
applicability of the circular dated 06.10.2023 could not
be explained by the petitioner. The subsequent circular
issued by the Government dated 06.10.2023 is
prospectively applicable.
6. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended
to the petitioner. The age relaxation in terms of circular
dated 18.09.2022 has already been granted in the
advertisement which was published on 30.12.2022."
6. From the order dated 11/01/2024 passed by the Division Bench, it is
evident that the benefit extended vide Government order dated 06/10/2023
has been held to be prospectively applicable and not applied to the
advertisement dated 30/12/2022.
7. Yet another writ petition was filed before Principal Bench of this
court which was subject matter of W.P. No.11403 of 2023 which was
disposed off vide order, dated 12.02.024, granting liberty to petitioners to
avail the benefit of circular, dated 06.10.2023. After reproducing the recitals
of order, dated 06.10.2023, the petitions were disposed off with following
order:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8043
6 WP-20315-2024
"In the backdrop of aforesaid amended instruction
No.F1/1/201/2023/38-1 dated 6.10.2023, learned
counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners be
permitted to avail benefit flowing from the said Circular
dated 6.10.2023 and the petition with this observation
be disposed of.
Learned counsel for State has no objection.
Accordingly, these petitions stand disposed of with
liberty to the petitioners to avail benefit of amended
Circular No.F1/1/201/2023/38-1 dated 6.10.2023 in
accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, these petitions stand disposed
of."
8. Thus, no observations were made by Division Bench on merits of
the case.
9. Several writ petitions were also filed before the Gwalior Bench
claiming benefit of age relaxation pursuant to order dated 06/10/2023. The
order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.875/2024 was not
brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The batch of writ petitions
was disposed off vide order dated 06/02/2024 (Annexure P/3) wherein
interpreting Clause (ii) of order dated 06/10/2023, learned Single Judge held
that the said provision is applicable to the ongoing process also and therefore,
held that the petitioners therein are entitled to submit their examination form
and directed the respondent/MPPSC to open the online window to enable the
petitioners to submit their examination form. The learned Singh Judge made
applicable the directions to similarly placed person also in order to avoid
multiplicity of litigation.
10. The respondent MPPSC filed application for recall of the order,
dated 06.02.2024, (in disposed of writ petitions) which were disposed off by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8043
7 WP-20315-2024
the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 23.02.2024, (Annexure P/4). It is
relevant to point out here that the learned Single Judge in para 4 of the order,
dated 23.02.2024, has observed that "the process is still in the initial stage ".
In para 6 of this order, the order, dated 19.10.2023, passed by Division
Bench in W.P. No.3709 of 2023 was brought to the notice of learned Single
Judge. Further, in para 10, the leaned State Counsel brought the order, dated
11.01.2024, passed by Division Bench in W.P. No.875 of 2024 to the notice
of learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for writ petitioners opposed the
prayer for recall mainly on the ground that the same is beyond the limited
scope of review. In para 14 & 15 of this order, the learned Single Judge took
note of the objections taken by writ petitioners which were mainly related to
benefit of age relaxation to which the State counsel had given concession.
The observations made in para 22 of this order are important and relevant
and are thus reproduced hereunder:-
"22. Judgment/order passed by learned Division Bench
of this Court is binding over the Single Bench.
Profitable reliance over the guidance given by learned
Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Jabalpur Bus
Operators Association and others Vs. State of M.P. and
others reported in (2003) 1 MPLJ 513 can be laid.
Earlier order passed by learned Division Bench dated
19-10-2023 deserved to be followed by this Court
specially when review of that order was also got
dismissed vide order dated 18-12-2023 in Review
Petition No.1312/2023 by the same learned Division
Bench at Jabalpur. Both these orders were passed prior
to passing of the order dated 11-01-2024 in Writ
Petition No.875/2024 which is tried to be relied upon by
counsel for the respondents. Although it is worth
mentioning the fact that initially, only order dated 19-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8043
8 WP-20315-2024
10-2023 passed in the bunch of writ petitions led by
Writ Petition No.3709/2023 was shown."
11. The learned Single Judge thus preferred to follow the order, dated
19/10/2023, passed by Division Bench in W.P. No.10455 of 2023 on the
ground that it was passed earlier in point of time. The recall applications
were thereafter rejected noting the limited scope of review.
12. In view of discussion made above with regard to previous
litigations and various orders passed by this court, the position boils down to
this that the Division Bench order dated 19/10/2023, passed in W.P.
No.10455 of 2023 is based on concession given by learned Government
counsel in respect of relaxation in age only. The order, dated 18/12/2023,
passed in R.P. No.1312 of 2023, again records concession given by
Government counsel that the order, dated 06.10.2023, shall be applied
appropriately. The other order, dated 11/01/2024, passed by the Division
Bench in Writ Petition No.875/2024 declines the relief on the ground that the
order, dated 06.10.2023, is to be applied prospectively.
13. Thus, considering various orders referred above and giving
purposive interpretation to them, it is found that all the orders passed in
favour of writ petitioners, including the order dated 06/02/2024 passed in
W.P. No.1107 of 2024 and other connected petitions, are related to benefit of
age relaxation only. In none of the cases, the benefit of reservation of 25%
posts to guest faculty candidates is taken into account.
14. The basic difference in the two benefits extended vide order, dated
06/10/2023, viz. benefit of age relaxation and benefit of reservation of 25%
posts, is that the criterion of age relaxation is to be applied at the initial stage
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8043
9 WP-20315-2024
of filling up the form by the candidates. In other words, without this
relaxation various candidates including the petitioners in previous litigations,
were not eligible. Noting the fact that the recruitment process is at the initial
stage (as observed in para 4 of recall order), the court allowed the benefit of
age relaxation to the ongoing process also. Needless to mention, the State
also agreed to apply this relaxation to ongoing process. On the other hand,
the benefit of reservation of 25% posts for guest faculty candidates is to
applied at the stage of selection. It is informed by the learned counsel for
MPPSC that the selection process for some of the disciplines is already over
and for others it is at final stage of interview. The details provided by
MPPSC is as under:-
S.No. Name of Date of result of written Date of Date of final
Subject examination interview result
23-12-24 to
1- Sanskrit 19-09-2024 28-01-2025
26-12-24
21-04-25 to -------------
2- Commerce 27-09-2024
25-04-25 -
3- Botany 04-10-2024 Not fixed ---------------
27-02-25 to
4- English 08-10-2024 Awaited
07-03-25
15. Thus, in my considered opinion, the order passed by this court in
earlier batch of petition (W.P. No.1107 of 2024) has to be confined to benefit
of relaxation of age extended vide clause (ii) of order, dated 06.10.2023.
16. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the benefit of
reservation of 25% posts has to be extended at every stage of selection
process viz. at the time of written examination and again in the case of
interview. In other words, he submits that a separate cut off is to be fixed for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8043
10 WP-20315-2024
guest faculty candidates at both stages. In the facts of this case, I do not
intend to go into the validity of this argument and only observe that if the
contention of the petitioners is to be accepted, the consequence of the same
would prejudically effect various other candidates who have been selected
upto final stage of interview in various disciplines. If the benefit of the
reservation is to be extended, the entire exercise is required to be re-
visited. The successful candidates are not before this court and on this count
also, the relief cannot be granted to the writ petitioners in this batch.
17. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, the petitioners are
not entitled to get relief in this batch of writ petitions. Accordingly, these
writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
