Madhya Pradesh High Court
Megha Panchal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25090
1 WP-35852-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 4 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 35852 of 2025
MEGHA PANCHAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashutosh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.GA for respondent No.1 State on advance
notice.
Shri Manu Maheshwari - Advocate for respondent No.4 on advance
notice.
ORDER
The petitioners are seeking a direction to allow them to appear in the
selection for the post of Primary Teacher Selection Test, 2025. It is further
argued that the petitioners' form is not accepted on the ground that the
petitioners had not completed the minimum age of 21 years as on 1.1.2025.
He argues that the cut-off date should have been fixed as of 1.1.2026.
Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the aforesaid issue has been
decided in WP No.30934/2025.
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:25090
2 WP-35852-2025
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.''
It is further argued that the petitioners have already qualified the
Eligibility Test, and in the Eligibility, the date was mentioned 01.01.2025;
therefore, not allowing them 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.
Learned counsel for respondent No.4, 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.''
The amendment in the aforesaid Rules was made prior to the
issuance of the advertisement for Selection Test. The amended Rules
unequivocally engraft that the candidate must have attained the age as
specified in column (3) of Schedule - III, but must not have attained the age
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25090
3 WP-35852-2025
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.
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 1st day of
January, 2025, as the advertisement was issued in the year 2025. The rule
that has been relied upon by the petitioner has already been amended.
Further, the contention of counsel for the petitioners is that since the
petitioners have passed the Eligibility Test, therefore, he could not have been
restrained from filling up the form on the ground of age has no merit. The
Eligibility Test and the selection for appointment are both different test. By
passing the Eligibility Test, a candidate does not get the 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.
In view of the aforesaid and in the light of the judgment passed in
WP No.30934/2025, this Court does not find any merit in the petition. The
petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be given
liberty to challenge the vires of the Rules.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25090
4 WP-35852-2025
This Court has not examined the vires or validity of the Rules; hence,
no such liberty is rejected.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
