Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Aruna Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1 WA-900-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 12th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 900 of 2024
SMT. ARUNA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi- Deputy Advocate General for respondent Nos.
1, 2, 3 and 4.
Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.
ORDER
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The present writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner who is
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the learned
Single Bench in W.P. No.1362/2013 by which the petition filed by the
petitioner was allowed. The appellant before this Court was respondent No.6
in the writ petition. The case of the appellant is that the appellant was
appointed on the post of Aaganwadi Karyakarta which was set aside by the
order dated 08.04.2008 passed by the Collector, Umaria which the appellant
challenged before the Commissioner, Shahdol. The order passed by the
Collector, Umaria removing the appellant from the post of Aaganwadi
2 WA-900-2024
Karyakarta on a representation filed to the Collector, Shahdol to the effect
that the appellant did not satisfy the condition of educational qualification.
Before proceeding further, it is essential to state here that the petitioner
has done her Poorva Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama in Sanskrit. Poorva
Madhyama is considered to be equivalent to Class-10th and Uttar Madhyama
is considered an equivalent of Class-12th. It was pointed out that the
appellant had completed her Poorva Madhyama on 15.09.2023 and Uttar
Madhyama on 09.08.2024 which according to the respondent herein was
impossible.
On appeal to the Commissioner, Shahdol, the appellant's position was
restored as the Commissioner held that the period within which the two
certificates had to be acquired by the candidate was not relevant for the
purpose of ascertaining equivalence in educational qualification. The
Commissioner held that the certificate of Poorva Madhyama was equivalent
to the 10th Standard and that of Uttar Madhyama was equivalent to the 12th
Standard. That order passed by the Commissioner, Shahdol was challenged
by the respondent herein before the learned Single Bench which set aside the
order of the Commissioner, Shahdol and restored the order passed by the
Collector, Umaria appointing the respondent No.6 herein to the post of
Aaganwadi Karyakarta.
It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge of which the
appellant is aggrieved of. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the genuineness of her certificates have never been doubted. It is further
submitted that where the rules of the respondent itself require that Poorva
3 WA-900-2024
Madhyama be treated as Class-10th and Uttar Madhyama as equivalent of
Class-12th, the number of years taken by the candidate to acquire these two
degrees was not relevant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents herein have referred to
General Administration Department (GAD) circular and the notification
dated 05.07.2010 and 26.02.2005 respectively issued by the M.P. Board of
Secondary Education. It is mentioned clearly that the examination of Poorva
Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Sanskrit
Board have been treated as equivalent to the examination of High School
and Higher Secondary School conducted by the M.P. Board of Secondary
Education where it is clearly stated that the Poorva Madhyama itself is a two-
year course and Uttar Madhyama is also a two-years course.
Under the circumstances, it would not be possible for the appellant
herein to have completed Poorva Madhyama on 15.09.2003 and less than a
year later completed her Uttar Madhyama on 09.08.2004. As regards, the
arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
certificates have never been doubted for their genuineness. Learned counsel
for the appellant has also mentioned that the learned Single Judge has
observed in the impugned order that the State has never brought any
document relating to the period of the course of Awadhesh Pratap Singh
(APS) University, Rewa and instead had placed before the learned Single
Bench, the document pertaining to Maharishi Patanjali Sanskrit Sanstha
which provided that the Poorva Madhyama course is of two-year duration
and the Uttar Madhyama course is also of two-year period. Annexure P/7 to
4 WA-900-2024
the Writ Petition is the document relating to the validity of the Poorva
Madhyama and the Uttar Madhyama relating to the APS University, Rewa
which also provides that each of those courses have a duration of two-years,
therefore, to complete the course of Poorva Madhyama and Uttar
Madhyama, four years would be taken and not two.
Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in order to interfere with the same.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed. The petitioner is granted liberty to challenge
the notifications mentioned and relied herein above, if he so desires.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shivani
