Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayprakash Mandloi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through The ... on 26 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23683
1 WP-32686-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 32686 of 2025
JAYPRAKASH MANDLOI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aayush Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Romil Verma GA for State.
Ms.Akshata Singh, counsel for respondent No.3.
ORDER
On 22.08.2025 counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that issue
involved in the present case is covered by the order passed by this Court in
the case of Dipesh Bhabor and others Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.
30934/2025) decided on 21.08.2025.
Counsel for the petitioner after going through the said order, submitted
that case is covered by the said order.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent to allow him to fill
up the form of M.P. Primary Teacher Selection Test, 2025.
02. It is argued that the respondents have prescribed the age for
eligibility from 01.01.2025 instead of 01.01.2026. The said prescription of
date for the age for eligibility is contrary to Clause 8.1 of the Madhya
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23683
2 WP-32686-2025
Pradesh School Services Education Cadre, 2018. The aforesaid Clause - 8.1
reads as under:-
''8.1(a). the candidates must have attained the age as specified in
column (3) of schedule - III but must not have attain the age as
specified in column (4) of the said schedule, on the first day of
January that comes after the date of commencement of the
selection process.''
03. It is further argued that the petitioner has already qualified the
Eligibility Test and in the Eligibility, the date was mentioned 01.01.2025,
therefore, not allowing him to fill up the form for appointment is illegal and
arbitrary. He relied on a judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case
of Sushil Singh & Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ
Petition No.25805 of 2022) and other connected matters decided on
01.08.2024.
04. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on instruction, submitted
that Rules of 2018 have been amended by Gazette Notification dated
27.12.2024. Rule 8(ii) is reproduced as under:-
''8(ii) in sub-rule (1), for clause (a), the following clause shall be
substituted, namely:-
(a) The candidate must have attained the age as specified in
column (3) of Schedule - III but must not have attained the age as
specified in column (4) of the said Schedule, on January 1 of the
year of the advertisement issued for the selection test.''
05. The amendment in the aforesaid Rules was made prior to the
issuance of advertisement for Selection Test. The amended Rules
unequivocally engrafts that the candidate must have attained the age as
specified in column (3) of the Schedule - III, but must not have attained the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23683
3 WP-32686-2025
age as specified in column (4) of the said schedule on January 1 of the year
of the advertisement issued for the Selection Test. Thus, from the plain
language of the amended provision, it is clear that the date for the age has to
be prescribed on January 1 of the year of the advertisement issued for the
Selection Test.
06. Admittedly, the Selection Test Advertisement has been issued
after the amendment in the rules i.e. 27.12.2024. Thus, there is no illegality
in the advertisement prescribing the date for consideration of age as on
1 st day of January, 2025 as the advertisement was issued in the year 2025.
The rule which has been relied by the petitioner has already been amended.
07. Further the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that since
the petitioner has passed the Eligibility Test, therefore, he could not have
been restrained to fill up the form on the ground of age has no merit. The
Eligibility Test and the selection for appointment both are different test. By
passing Eligibility Test, a candidate does not get right to appointment
automatically. The selection for appointment is to be governed by the
recruitment rules and the age for selection for appointment has been
prescribed as amended Recruitment Rules.
08. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the
petition. The petition is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
