[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36975
1 WP-42759-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 42759 of 2025
DEEPAK PARMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Vishal Sanothiya and Shiv Gurjar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Bhatia, counsel for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the
petitioner in General Diploma Category instead of Special Diploma Category.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a resident of Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh,
and a citizen of India, and is therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court. The petitioner had appeared in the Primary School Teacher Recruitment
Examination, 2020, conducted by Respondent No. 2, and successfully qualified the
same by securing marks above the prescribed cut-off. Thereafter, the respondents
introduced a subsequent recruitment process by framing a new set of rules, wherein an
additional examination was prescribed along with revised eligibility criteria, creating
two distinct categories of candidates, namely General Diploma Holders (D.El.Ed) and
Special Diploma Holders (Special D.El.Ed), the latter being applicable to specially
abled candidates. In compliance with the said rules, the petitioner appeared in the
recruitment examination conducted in the year 2025; however, while submitting the
online application form, owing to a bona fide human error on the part of the operator of
the M.P. Online portal, the option pertaining to the Special D.El.Ed category was
inadvertently selected instead of the General D.El.Ed category.
3. It is further stated by the petitioner that he appeared in the aforesaid examination
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36975
2 WP-42759-2025
and secured 80% marks, as displayed on the computer screen upon completion of the
examination, which constitutes a sufficiently meritorious score for consideration for
final selection to the post. It has been contended by the petitioner that the petitioner
became aware of the said inadvertent error only upon subsequent scrutiny of the
application form, whereupon he promptly submitted several representations and emails
to the respondents requesting that his candidature be considered under the General
D.El.Ed category. It is respectfully submitted that the only distinction between the
Special D.El.Ed and General D.El.Ed categories under the rules is the grant of five
bonus marks to candidates of the Special D.El.Ed category, whereas the petitioner
possesses a valid General D.El.Ed qualification along with the requisite teaching
experience, and even without the grant of such bonus marks, his score remains
sufficient to warrant selection. Owing to the inaction on the part of the respondents and
in view of the imminent declaration of the examination results, the petitioner has been
constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, asserting
that he is fully qualified, competent, and desirous of appointment to the post, and that
he cannot be made to suffer adverse consequences for an error attributable solely to a
third party, namely the M.P. Online portal operator, particularly when he has been
awaiting such opportunity since having qualified the examination held in the year
2020.
4 . The counsel for the petitioner submitted that rejection of the petitioner's
candidature on account of the inadvertent option of "Special D.El.Ed" column instead
of "General Diploma" would be manifestly arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and
grossly disproportionate to the alleged lapse, thereby violating Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. It was contended that the error was trivial, bona fide, non-
material, and purely inadvertent, conferring no advantage whatsoever upon the
petitioner and having no bearing on her eligibility for the post. Reliance was placed on
judicial precedents, including Manjana v. State of H.P. & Ors. and Vashist Narayan
Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. , wherein it has been consistently held that candidature
cannot be rejected for minor or trivial errors which do not amount to misrepresentation
or suppression of material facts, particularly after participation in and clearance of
stages of the selection process, as the law does not concern itself with trifles.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36975
3 WP-42759-2025
5. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner never concealed
or suppressed any material information, nor indulged in any fraudulent conduct, and
duly submitted all requisite documents evidencing possession of the prescribed General
Diploma qualification as per the applicable rules for the Primary School Teacher
Examination, 2025. It was argued that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to be
considered for selection, forming an integral facet of Article 14 of the Constitution, and
that permitting consideration under the correct category would cause no prejudice to
any other candidate, would not disturb any merit list, nor compromise the integrity of
the selection process. Accordingly, directions were sought to treat the wrong selection
as a clerical or inadvertent error, to consider the petitioner under the General Diploma
Holder category, to permit participation in the further selection process, and to grant
any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7 . This Court is of the view that the petitioner had qualified the Primary School
Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2020 conducted by Respondent No. 2 and, pursuant
to the subsequent recruitment rules, appeared in the Primary School Teacher
Recruitment Examination, 2025. While submitting the online application form, the
petitioner, due to a bona fide clerical error attributable to the M.P. Online portal
operator, was inadvertently shown under the Special D.El.Ed category instead of the
General D.El.Ed category, despite possessing and uploading documents relating to the
General D.El.Ed qualification. The petitioner secured 80% marks in the examination,
which is otherwise sufficient for consideration, and no benefit of the Special D.El.Ed
category was claimed or derived.
8. This Court finds that the error in question is purely inadvertent, non-material, and
does not go to the root of eligibility. There is no allegation of misrepresentation,
suppression, or fraud on the part of the petitioner. Rejection of the petitioner's
candidature on such a technical lapse would be manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and
disproportionate, offending the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution. The settled legal position is that trivial mistakes not affecting eligibility
cannot be made a ground to deny consideration after participation in the selection
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36975
4 WP-42759-2025
process.
9. This Court further holds that the grievance raised is not individual in nature but
affects similarly situated candidates who may have inadvertently opted for an incorrect
D.El.Ed category while being otherwise eligible. Accordingly, the present judgment
shall operate as a judgment in rem. Respondent No. 2/Selection Board is directed to
issue a corrigendum within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of
the order, providing an online correction window of fifteen (15) working days to enable
all such candidates to rectify their category strictly in accordance with their eligibility.
The said facility shall be a one-time measure and shall not be extended beyond the
stipulated period and shall not be a precedent.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner's candidature
shall be considered under the General D.El.Ed category for all consequential purposes.
The benefit of this judgment shall extend to all similarly situated candidates, including
those who have even not approached this Court.
No order as to costs.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
Arun/-
