Madhya Pradesh High Court
Piyush Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12251
1 WP-15031-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15031 of 2025
PIYUSH PATIDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the petitioner (through VC)
Shri Amit Bhatia - G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present
petition is identical to the issue involved in W.P No.13575/2023 and other
connected petitions and therefore the same may be disposed of in light of the
judgment rendered in the aforesaid petitions.
2] This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the impugned advertisement dated 07.01.2023
(Annexure P/3), issued by the respondent no.1, may kindly
be modified up to the extent that any student who has been
graduated from any agriculture college with or without
affiliation from ICAR will be allowed in document
verification.
(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed there will
not be any disqualification or scrutiny on the ground of
affiliation of ICAR.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in
favour of the petitioner may also kindly be granted to the
petitioner.
(iv) The cost of this petition may kindly be awarded to the
petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12251
2 WP-15031-2025
3] The petitioner is aggrieved of the advertisement dated 07.1.2023, issued
by the respondent no.2/ Additional Director, Kisan Kalyan Tatha Krishi Vikas
Vibhag, Bhopal wherein, the applications, inter alia, for the post of Block
Technology Manager and Assistant Technology Manager have been invited.
4] The aforesaid advertisement has been challenged by the petitioner on
the ground that it prescribes the minimum qualification to be the degree or post-
graduation degree from an institute recognized by the Bhartiya Krishi Anusadhan
Parishad (Indian Council of Agriculture and Research- hereinafter referred to as
the ICAR).
5] The petitioner's contention is that the said condition of the institute
being accredited with ICAR has been additionally imposed in the aforesaid
advertisement issued in the year 2023, despite the fact that the National
Agricultural Education Accreditation Board itself, in the minutes of meeting dated
on 20.3.2017, has already taken a decision that the accreditation from ICAR is not
mandatory but, rather voluntary for the agricultural colleges/programmes and
university. Thus, it is submitted that the aforesaid condition may be struck off in
respect of those petitioners, who have been declared qualified in the examination.
6] Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to
the earlier guidelines of the year 2014, in which, the educational qualifications for
the post of Block Technology Manager and Assistant Technology Manager do not
provide for the accreditation of the college from ICAR.
7] Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the advertisement issued
by the respondent no.2/ Additional Director, Kisan Kalyan Tatha Krishi Vikas
Vibhag, Bhopal for the post of Block Technology Manager and Assistant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12251
3 WP-15031-2025
Technology Manager in which also, no such accreditation is required.
8] On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the
prayer. A reply has also been filed wherein, the respondents have taken a stand
that because of the executive instruction received from the State vide order dated
24.8.2022, in which it is provided that the candidates must have passed the
adequate educational qualification from a college recognized by the ICAR.
However, counsel for the respondent/State has not disputed that the instruction of
the minutes of the meeting held by the National Agricultural Education
Accreditation Board are binding on the respondents, which do not prescribe the
mandatory condition that the educational institution must be accredited with
ICAR.
9] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions, and on perusal of the
documents filed on record, it is apparent that as per the minutes of the meeting of
National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board held on 20.3.2017, it has
been resolved as under:-
" 5.0 Other Agenda items
5.1 Clarification from Centurion University of Technology and
Management,
Bhubaneswar regarding essential requirement of ICAR accreditation for
taking admission in masters programmes in Agricultural
Universities.The Board deliberated the issue in the line with the
observations and representations made by Students and institutions and
decided to issue a clarification to appropriate authorities containing the
following subject:
Since the accreditation from ICAR is not mandatory, rather voluntary,
for the agricultural colleges/programmes and universities, the students
from non-accredited programmes/colleges/universities may not be
denied for higher studies and employment. However, for quality
assurance, all State Universities and private universities offering courses
in agricultural science should initiate process of accreditation with the
Council."
10] It is apparent from the aforesaid resolution that the accreditation from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12251
4 WP-15031-2025
ICAR is not at all mandatory but, it is only voluntary, and on the other hand it is
also directed that all State Universities and private universities offering courses in
agricultural science should initiate process of accreditation with the Council.
Thus, the respondents ought not to have made it a mandatory condition that the
Institution from which, the candidates have passed their graduation or post-
graduation must be accredited with ICAR.
11] In such circumstances, the aforesaid condition of the advertisement
mandating that the educational Institutions/colleges must be accredited with ICAR
is hereby quashed.
12] Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed
to proceed further with the process of appointment of those petitioners, who are
eligible and have passed in the examination.
13] Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a further period of two
months, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
14] All the interlocutory applications are hereby disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
PK
