Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23283
1 WP-33350-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33350 of 2025
VINOD JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jayesh Gurnani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
Counsel for the petitioner submits that issue involved in the present
petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Dr. Narendra
Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No 20256/2025).
Counsel for the State submits that matter is covered by the said
judgment.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, the instant petition may kindly be allowed and the
impugned joining order dated 04.02.2025 issued by the respondent
no.2 may kindly be quashed.
7.2 That, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the
candidature of petitioner by freshly preparing SC Open category
merit list:
7.3 That, the respondents may kindly be directed to shift/migrate
14 SC Open category candidates of merit list in UR Open category
merit list and thereafter to issue fresh SC open category merit list;
7.4 That, the cost of instant petition may also be awarded to the
petitioner and any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience
may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23283
2 WP-33350-2025
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the selection list and joining order
dated 04.02.2025 whereby the name of petitioner has been excluded from
selection. The case of the petitioner is that he had participated in the entrance
examination of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer (Class-III) advertised
on 06/04/2023, and as per the final result, his name appears at Sr. No.56 of
waiting list dated 02/02/2024 against the EWS Open category. The
petitioner's grievance is that after the final results were declared, many
candidates, who were selected, did not join, as a result of which, various
vacancies have arisen, however, the respondents, instead of following the
Rule No.11.2 and 11.3 of Madhya Pradesh Kanishtha Seva (Sanyukta
Aharta) Pariksha Niyam, 2013, have selected only UR category persons
against the vacancies on account of non-joining of the UR category persons.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to
Rule 11.2 and 11.3 of the aforesaid Rules of 2013, which provides that any
candidate belonging to the reserved category is selected in the unreserved
category, in that case, his/her candidature shall be considered only under the
unreserved category, and shall not be considered towards reserved category,
whereas, Rule 11.3 provides that a person belonging to reserved category
shall be adjusted towards the unreserved category, if it is found that
otherwise he/she has secured the same marks as that of the unreserved
category candidate. Counsel has submitted that the respondents have adopted
a procedure that those vacancies left by the unreserved category are being
filled by the unreserved category only instead of all the categories, and thus,
it is submitted that the respondents may be directed to follow the proper
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23283
3 WP-33350-2025
procedure.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have
opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made
out. Although, no reply has been filed despite availing the last opportunity.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
filed on record.
6. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the
documents filed on record, this Court is inclined to dispose off this petition
with a direction to the respondents No.2/3 to follow the proper procedure as
prescribed under Rule 11.2 and 11.3 of the Rules of 2013, and after
following the aforesaid procedure, if it is found that the petitioner is also
entitled to be given appointment, the same shall be extended to him within a
further period of two months after issuing the new selection list and joining
order.
7. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
