Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rupesh Kumar Sen vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2025
1
WP No.10211 of 2023 &
WP No.10979 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10211 of 2023
NITESH KUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 10979 of 2023
RUPESH KUMAR SEN AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioners in both the
petitions.
Ms. Vaaridhi Pathak - Panel Lawyer for the respondents / State.
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
As both the petitions are filed on identical facts and involve similar
issues, therefore they are being decided by this common order.
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have called in question the
order (Annexure P-1) dated 10.04.2023 whereby the representations of the
petitioners for change of allotted unit have been rejected on the ground that
the record of selection process has to be retained for a period of three years
and since the petitioners appeared in Constable Recruitment Test in the
year 2012-2013, therefore, the applications for change of units cannot be
WP No.10211 of 2023 &
entertained at this distance of time which is 10 years after the result was
declared.
3. The factual matrix of the case is not in dispute. The petitioners had
appeared for combined recruitment test of Constables in M.P. Police, Home
Guards and Special Armed Force. The petitioners were allotted to Special
Armed Force. They had appeared in the recruitment process as members of
OBC category. The petitioners were allotted SAF way back in the year
2013-14 and they were satisfied with the allocation of unit in SAF and not
in regular police. They have joined the services in SAF and have been
working in SAF since then.
4. Only when in relation to a subsequent recruitment test for Constables
when the matter went up to Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Praveen
Kumar Kurmi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7663/2021), that
the petitioners have woken up all of sudden in the year 2023.
5. In the aforesaid case the, Hon'ble Supreme court has settled the legal
issue that if a candidate belonging to OBC category is migrated to
unreserved category on the basis of his performance and he attains merit of
unreserved category then the allocation of unit and working out of
preference would be as per OBC category because if he had not been
migrated to unreserved category then he would have remained at top of
OBC category and would have got top choice under OBC category but
upon being migrated to unreserved category he has got into the bottom
merit list and got last or bottom of choices. Therefore, migration of
reserved candidate to unreserved category should not be to his detriment or
disadvantage so that he may not be placed in adverse position than other
less meritorious reserved category candidates as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Kurmi (supra).
WP No.10211 of 2023 &
6. The petitioners after having served happily in SAF for 10 years have
suddenly woken up in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Praveen Kumar Kurmi (supra) and seek to unsettle the things
settled long ago. If the petitioners are adjusted now in regular police, then it
would amount to redrafting the select list and candidates who have been
allocated to M.P. Police under OBC category are now liable to be disturbed
and they are liable to be allocated to some other unit like Home Guards,
SAF etc.
7. The petitioners did not have any objection in serving for SAF for last
10 years and they cannot be allowed to unsettle the candidates of their own
category by seeking migration to regular police in place of SAF and
seeking to unsettle other OBC category candidates who got allocated to
M.P. Police.
8. The petitioners had never agitated the matter prior to 2023 and even
the judgment in the case of Praveen Kumar Kurmi (supra) is in respect of
some subsequent recruitment and not the recruitment of the petitioners.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment
of Division Bench in WP No. 34551/2024 (Ramraj Patel Vs. State of M.P.
& Ors.). However, the said judgment hardly helps the petitioners for the
simple reason that in the said case the respondents had not given the reason
that the records of selection are not available with them after such a long
period and without assigning any cogent reason, it was mentioned that
proper unit has been allotted to the petitioners therein. Therefore, the case
decided by the Division Bench in WP No.34551/2024 does not help the
petitioners at all.
10. In view of the above, the petitioners cannot be permitted to unsettle
the settled things which stand settled since long time by seeking benefit of
a subsequent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year
WP No.10211 of 2023 &
2022 and not having agitated the issue earlier. It will not be a case of
granting relief to petitioners alone, but would also unsettle the other
candidates who stood settled 10 years ago. Consequently, the petitioners
being fence sitters, the petitions stand dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
