Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tabassum Shaik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17151
1 WA-1133-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 07th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1133 of 2025
TABASSUM SHAIK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Rishabh Gupta - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent
/ State.
.............................................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
This writ appeal assails legality of the order dated 17/03/2025
(Annex.-P/1) passed by learned writ Court in Writ Petition No.5948/2024,
whereby the learned writ Court has dismissed the writ petition.
02. Facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that appellant /
petitioner before the learned writ Court is a B.Sc. (Science) graduate with one
subject as 'English Language'. She appeared for Middle School Teacher
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17151
2 WA-1133-2025
Eligibility Test, 2018 conducted by respondent No.3 and was found eligible for
her appointment as English or Science Teacher (Annex.-P/5).
03. Office of respondent No.4 issued an advertisement No.10503 dated
24/06/2021 inviting applications from those candidates who were found eligible
as per the examination conducted by respondent No.3 for direct recruitment as
Higher Middle School Teacher and Middle School Teacher (Annex.-P/6). The
advertisement stated that the appointment will be as per Madhya Pradesh Tribal
and Scheduled Teachers Class (Services and Recruitment) Rules, 2018.
04. A certificate (Annex.-P/7) was issued to the effect that appellant was
present for document verification and her original documents were verified.
Order (Annex.-P./8) of posting for eligible candidates as a Middle School
English Teacher along with their postings was issued by respondent No.4,
wherein the appellant secured a place at serial No.95. Vide letter dated
04/01/2022 addressed to respondent No.5 (Annex.-P/12) highlighted the
concern that the appellant does not possess requisite qualification as per
amended Rules dated 24/06/2019 and directed for appropriate steps to be taken
for cancellation of her candidature and appointment. Pursuant thereto
respondent No.4 vide order dated 18/02/2022 cancelled the appointment of
appellant as Middle School English Teacher on the ground that she could not
produce documents which reflect that she graduated in English Literature as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17151
3 WA-1133-2025
required by amended Rules.
05. The order dated 18/02/2022 passed by the respondent No.4 was
challenged before the learned writ Court and the learned writ Court vide order
dated 17/03/2025 passed in Writ Petition No.5948/2024 has dismissing the writ
petition by observing as under:
"9] On due consideration of submissions, perusal of the
documents filed on record and also taking into account the
advertisement which has been placed on record subsequently
by the counsel for the respondents, in which it is clearly
provided that the candidate is required to hold the requisite
educational qualification in the relevant subject only, this
Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality has been
committed by the respondent in passing the impugned order. It
is also true that it has unnecessarily given a false hope to the
petitioner which could have been avoided by the respondent,
but on that basis alone the petitioner cannot assert any legal
right to be appointed as middle school teacher.
10] So far as the decision in the case of Smt. Madhuri
Prajapati Vs. State of M.P. and Others (W.P.No.7912/2022,
dated 13.10.2023) is concerned, the facts are different and in
that case, the advertisement did not have the same condition
as in the present case.
11] In view of the same, no case for interference is made
out.
12] Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17151
4 WA-1133-2025
hereby dismissed."
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this
writ appeal.
06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned writ Court has
failed to appreciate that appellant is a Science Graduate, who has also studied
English as a subject of her graduation. The requirement under 2018 Rules was
only 'English Language', whereas by amendment in 2019 Rules requirement of
'English Literature' has been introduced. He further submits that respondent
No.4 has incorrectly relied upon Annex-R/2 (annexed with the Writ Petition
No.5948/2024), which provides for selection procedure and the manner in
which the examination should be conducted. It does not reflect the eligibility
criteria for the selection of the appellant as an English Teacher.
07. Learned counsel further submits that Teacher's examination related
eligibility test does not mention about any pre-requisite qualification subject
mandated for appointment as an English Teacher. If it was found by the
respondent No.4 that appellant was not eligible for appointment as Middle
School English Teacher, alternatively, appellant should have been given posting
as a Science Teacher, which she has already qualified through Teacher's
Eligibility Test conducted by respondent No.3.
08. He further submits that learned Single Judge has failed to consider
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17151
5 WA-1133-2025
that the Rules of appointment cannot be changed midway. For this, learned
counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment by the Apex court in the case of
Tej Prakash Pathak Vs. Rajasthan High Court reported in 2024 INSC 847.
Appellant possesses her masters degree in English i.e. M.A. In English from
recognized University. On these submissions, learned counsel prays for
allowing this appeal extending the relief as prayed in Writ Petition
No.5948/2024 by setting aside the impugned order dated 17/03/2025 passed by
the learned writ Court.
09. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents / State has
vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant while
supporting the impugned order passed by learned writ Court on the ground that
in the year 2019 Rules have been changed and now it is essential qualification
for being appointed as Middle School Teacher to be having graduate degree in
the subject for which the candidate aspires for being a Teacher.
10. He further submits that since the appellant has studied English as only
a subject while pursuing her graduation in Science subject, she was not
possessing qualification required for being posted as Middle School English
Teacher, therefore, there can be no estoppel against law. No illegality has been
committed by the learned writ Court in rejecting her appointment and learned
Single Judge while taking all these aspects into consideration has affirmed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17151
6 WA-1133-2025
cancellation order by dismissing the writ petition, which cannot be taken
exception too. On these submissions, learned counsel prays for dismissing the
writ petition.
11. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. It is not in dispute that appellant has obtained her graduate decree in
Science subject, in which English was also a subject. Annexure-R/2, which is a
circular No.04/126/2018/25/1, Bhopal dated 14/09/2018 dealing with the
procedure of employment of Higher Middle School Teacher. It is relevant for
the purpose, which has been relied upon by the respondents. Para 1.2 and 1.4 of
the circular runs as under:
"¼1-2½ ek/;fed fon~;ky;ksa esa v/;kiu dk;Z gsrq fu;ksftr fd;s
tkus okys ek/;fed f'k{kd dh ik=rk ikjh{kk fo"k;okj gksxh A
ijh{kk esa fo"k; xf.kr] foKku] lkekftd foKku] fgUnh] vaxzsth]
laLd`r ,oa mnZq gksaxsA xf.kr fo"k; ds varxZr vH;FkhZ dks xf.kr
vFkok HkkSfrd 'kkL= vFkok bathfu;fjax fo"k;ksa ds lkFk Lukrd
mikf/k /kkfjr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA foKku fo"k; varxZr jlk;u
'kkL=] ouLifr foKku] izk.kh foKku] ekbdzks ck;ksykWath] ck;ksykWath]
ck;ksVsDuksykWath] dEI;wVj] ck;ksbUQjesfVªDl esa ls fdUgh nks fo"k;ksa ds
lkFk Lukrd mikf/k /kkfjr djuk ,oa lkekftd foKku fo"k; varxZr
bfrgkl] jktuhfr 'kkL=] vFkZ'kkL=] Hkwxksy] lkekftd 'kkL= ,oa
okf.kT; fo"k; esa ls fdlh ,d fo"k; ds lkFk Lukrd mikf/k /kkfjr
djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA Lukrd mikf/k fu/kkZfjr izfr'kr ds lkFk fu;e
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17151
7 WA-1133-2025
esa mYysf[kr izko/kku vuqlkj /kkfjr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA
¼1-4½ ek/;fed f'k{kd rFkk mPp ek/;fed f'k{kd ds in ij
p;u gsrq vkosnd dks mlh fo"k; ds lkFk ik=rk ijh{kk mRrh.kZ
djuk vfuok;Z gksxk] ftl fo"k; dh og f'k{k.k ;ksX;rk /kkfjr djrk
gSA"
From perusal of the aforesaid stipulation, it is clear that for being
appointed as Middle School Teacher the candidate should possess graduate
degree in the subject, which she opts for being appointment. As is apparent
from Annex.-R/1, appellant was having only English subject in her graduation
and she is not graduate in English subject, therefore, she was not entitled to
apply for the post in question. Mere her passing TET examination, which is not
per-requisite condition for being appointed as a Teacher, will not entitle her to
be appointed for the subject i.e. English in the instant case for which she has no
graduation degree, therefore, arguments advanced in this regard cannot be come
to her rescue.
13. Learned writ Court taking into account all these aspects including
"Old Rules of 08/08/2018 and New Rules of 24/06/2019" has come to the
conclusion that for being appointed as Middle School Teacher for the English
subject, she should have been graduate in English Literature rather than
graduate only, therefore, repelled the reasoning adopted by the appellant in this
regard.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17151
8 WA-1133-2025
14. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the
learned Writ Court has not committed any error in upholding the impugned
order and dismissing the writ petition. Ex consequentia this appeal sans merit,
fails and is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
