[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anusuiya Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
1 W.P. No.10277/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No.10277 of 2021
ANUSUIYA PRAJAPATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHER
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 18396 of 2022
SMT. SARITA MEHRA
Versus
DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 19690 of 2022
SMT. RENU MEWATI
Versus
TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 12-01-2026
17:54:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
2 W.P. No.10277/2021
WRIT PETITION No. 19986 of 2022
SMT. VIJETA SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20187 of 2022
SMT. ARPITA KATTHA
Versus
DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4358 of 2023
MRS. KAVITA DEVDA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND OTHERS
_________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 12-01-2026
17:54:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
3 W.P. No.10277/2021
Shri L.C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Anirudh Mapani - Government Advocate for
respondents/State
______________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 08/12/2025
Post on : 12/01/2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
These writ petitions arising out of various impugned orders
passed by the respondent Authorities cancelling the candidatureship of
the petitioners in different selection processes for appointment to the
post of Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak (different streams).
2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved, all the
petitions have been heard analogously and are being decided by this
common order.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residing within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Prior to marriage, the concerned
petitioners were residing in another State and belongs to a reserved
class community, for which a valid Other Backward Class (OBC)
certificate / SC / ST Caste certificate was issued by the Competent
Authority of that State.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
4. It is further the case of the petitioners that upon marriage
with a permanent resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the
petitioners shifted her residence and was issued a domicile certificate of
the State in accordance with the prevailing Government policy and
circulars. After acquiring domicile status, the petitioners claim
entitlement to all statutory and constitutional benefits available to
members of the said reserved class in the State.
5. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioners possess the
requisite educational qualifications prescribed under the applicable
Recruitment Rules governing the teaching cadre. The Rules, framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, provide for reservation
for women candidates and prescribe postgraduation and professional
teaching qualifications as essential eligibility criteria.
6. It is further the case of the petitioners that pursuant to an
advertisement issued by the Competent Examining Authority,
applications were invited for appointment to the post of Uchha
Madhyamik Shikshak (different streams). The petitioners applied under
the respective SC/ST/OBC category, participated in the selection
process, qualified the written examination on merit and was accordingly
called for document verification.
7. It is lastly the case of the petitioners that at the stage of document
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
verification, the petitioner's candidatureship was cancelled without
issuance of any show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of
hearing, solely on the ground of non-submission of caste certificate
issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Resulting in denial of
reservation benefits and prompting the filing of the present petition.
8. Per contra, Learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State submits that though the petitioners qualified the High
School Teacher Eligibility Test-2018, they failed to produce a valid
Domicile/Caste Certificate of Madhya Pradesh at the stage of document
verification and had falsely declared herself as a domicile of Madhya
Pradesh in the online application. The Tehsildar, after due scrutiny,
rightly rejected their applications for caste certificate, against which an
alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available but not availed. In
absence of a valid OBC/SC/ST Caste Certificate of Madhya Pradesh
and in view of the applicable recruitment rules, the petitioners were
rightly held ineligible and their candidatureship was lawfully rejected,
entitling them no relief or interim relief as claimed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the both parties at length and examined
the entire record available before this Court.
10. This Court holds that the benefit of reservation can be extended
only to those candidates who possess a valid domicile certificate of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
State of Madhya Pradesh. In the present case, although the petitioners
were originally residents of another State, upon their marriage to
permanent resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh, they are not to be
treated as migrants and for all service and reservation-related purposes,
they shall be reckoned as domiciled residents of the State of Madhya
Pradesh, subject to fulfillment of the prescribed statutory requirements.
11. This Court further notes that the candidates are governed by a
common examination and are subject to the same statutory framework,
namely the Madhya Pradesh School Education Service (Teaching
Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018, which came
into force with effect from 01/07/2018 for regulating the terms and
conditions of service of employees of the Teaching Cadre. The
advertisement in question has admittedly been issued in pursuance of
the said Rules.
12. Upon perusal of the Recruitment Rules, 2018, this Court finds
that there is no clear, specific or express clause stipulating that only
those candidates who possess a Caste Certificate issued by the
Competent Authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh would be eligible
for appointment, nor is there any clause declaring candidates holding
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
Caste Certificates issued by authorities of other States to be ineligible.
The Clause related to the reservation reads as follow:-
"12. आरक्षण
उच्च माध्यममक मिक्षक के पदाा का आरक्षण राज्य के मनधाा ररत रोस्टर के अनुक्रम में
मनयुक्तिकताा अमधकारी स्तर पर मकया जाएगा।
आरक्षण से संबंमधत स्पष्टीकरणः -
(1) मध्यप्रदे ि लोक सेवा (अनुसूमित जामतयों, अनुसूमित जनजामतयों और अन्य
मपछडे वगों के मलये आरक्षण) अमधमनयम, 1994 (क्रमां क 21 सन् 1994) के उपबंध,
उच्च माध्यममक मिक्षक के मनयोजन पर लागू होगे।
(2) मध्यप्रदे ि लोक सेवा (अनुसूमित जामतयों, अनुसूमित जनजामतयों और अन्य
मपछडे वगों के मलये आरक्षण) अमधमनयम, 1994 (क्रमां क 21 सन् 1994) के उपबंधों,
सामान्य प्रिासन मवभाग द्वारा उसकी अमधसू िना क्रमां क एफ-1/2002/090/एक,
मदनां क 19 मसतम्बर 2002 दवारा जारी मकए गए अनुदेिों के अनुसार, मध्यप्रदे ि
लोक सेवा (अनुसूमित जामतयों, अनुसूमित जामतयों और अन्य मपछडे वगों के मलए
आरक्षण) मनयम, 1998 और राज्य िासन द्वारा, समय-समय पर जारी मकए गए
आदे ि के अनु सरण में, अनु सूमित जामतयों, अनुसूमित जनजामतयों और अन्य मपछडे
वगों के अभ्यमथायों के मलये पद आरमक्षत मकए जाएं गे। इस आरक्षण का लाभ
मध्यप्रदे ि के मूल मनवामसयों को प्राप्त होगा ।
(3) ररि पदों के प्रत्येक प्रवगा यथा अनुसूमित जामतयों, अनुसूमित जन जामतयों, अन्य
मपछडा वगों एवं अनारमक्षत वगा के मलये मनम्नानुसार आरक्षण रहे गा:-
(एक) ममहलाओं के मलये 50 प्रमतितः
(दो) मदव्ां गजन अमधकार अमधमनयम, 2016 और मध्यप्रदे ि मदव्ां गजन अमधकार
अमधमनयम, 2017 के अनुसार 6 प्रमतित पदों का आरक्षण प्रत्ये क श्रेणी के
मलये 1.5 प्रमतित की सीमा में मनम्नानुसार रहे गा :-
(1) दृमष्टबामधत और कमदृमष्ट ।
(2) बहरे और कम सुनने वाले ।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
(3) लोकमोटर मडसेमबलेटी मजसमे से रेब्रल पाल्सी, कुष्ठ रोग मुि, बौनापन, एमसड
अते क पीमडत, मसकुलर मडस्टर ोफी सक्तिमलत हैं ।
(4) बहुमवक्लान्गता उपरोिानु सार (1) (2) एवं (3) को सक्तिमलत करते हुये ।
(तीन) भूतपूवा सैमनकों के मलये 10% :
(िार) उपलब्ध ररक्तियों की 25 प्रमतित ररक्तियों अमतमथ मिक्षक वगा के मनयोजन के
मलये आरमक्षत की जायेगी, मजनके द्वारा न्यूनतम तीन िै क्षमणक सत्ों में एवं न्यूनतम
200 मदवस िासकीय मवद्यालयों में अमतमथ मिक्षक के रूप में अध्यापन काया मकया
गया है ।
परन्तु अमतमथ मिक्षक के मलये आरमक्षत पदों की पू मता नहीं हो पाने की क्तिमत में ररि
रहे पदों को अन्य पात्ताधारी अभ्यमथा यों से भरा जाये गा।"
13. On a plain reading of the aforesaid Rules, this Court is of the
considered opinion that in absence of any express condition of ineligibility,
the matter necessarily stands on a different footing. In such circumstances,
the Recruiting Authority is required to undertake an examination as to
whether the caste or community to which the petitioners belong is
recognized as a reserved category in both the State from which the Caste
Certificate was originally issued and the State of Madhya Pradesh where
they have been married.
14. Hence, this Court is of the further opinion that upon examination, if
it is found that the caste or community of the petitioners falls under the same
reserved category, namely SC, ST or OBC, as the case may be, in both the
States, then merely because the Caste Certificate was issued by the
Competent Authority of another State, the petitioners cannot be held to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
ineligible for the consideration, in absence of any express Clause creating
any embargo for her selection.
15. Further, the denial of candidatureship solely on the ground that the
Caste Certificate was not issued by the Competent Authority of the State of
Madhya Pradesh, in the absence of any express prohibition in the
Recruitment Rules or the advertisement, would be arbitrary and
unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the Caste Certificate issued by the
Competent Authority of the other State shall, for the limited purpose of
determining eligibility, be treated as valid for consideration in the State of
Madhya Pradesh.
16. The aforesaid view stands fortified by the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Alka Singh v. State of M.P., decided
on 13.07.2012 in Writ Appeal No. 310 of 2012 (G) and reported as 2012
(III) MPWN 84, wherein the Court examined the applicability of the State
Government Circular dated 11/07/2005 issued under Article 46 of the
Constitution of India. The Court held that where a lady, belonging to a caste
notified as OBC in both the State of her birth and the State to which she is
married, cannot be treated as a migrated person merely on account of
marriage. It was further held that clauses 3(1) to 3(4) of the said circular are
not applicable in such a situation. Consequently, such a lady is entitled to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
issuance of a permanent Caste Certificate in the OBC category in the State
after marriage.
17. In view of the settled legal position, it is trite law that the
conditions of eligibility as prescribed in the advertisement are binding
upon both the candidates and the Recruiting Authority and must be
strictly complied with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bedanga
Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85, has
categorically held that the terms and conditions mentioned in the
advertisement cannot be relaxed or deviated from unless such power is
expressly reserved. Thus, where the advertisement specifically
mandates submission of a caste certificate issued by the Competent
Authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh and further declares
candidates holding caste certificates of other States as ineligible, failure
to fulfil such condition renders the candidate ineligible, and cancellation
of candidature cannot be faulted with.
18. However, the cases in hand, where the advertisement does not
contain any clear, specific or express stipulation requiring submission
of a Caste Certificate issued only by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the
respondents cannot introduce such a condition at a later stage, as the
rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
commenced, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 which reads as under :-
"27. But what could not have been done was the second
change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for
the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been
adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection
of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the
present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted
the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as
stated above was to apply minimum marks only for written
examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred
to the proper interpretation of the earlier Resolutions dated 24-
7-2001 and 21-2-2002 and held that what was adopted on 30-
11-2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and
not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement
of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection
process (consisting of written examination and interview) was
completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game
after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We
are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is
sufficient to refer to three of them -- P.K. Ramachandra
Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S)
214] , Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3
SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] and Durgacharan
Misra v. State of Orissa [(1987) 4 SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L&S)
36 : (1987) 5 ATC 148] .
32. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao
Mandve [(2001) 10 SCC 51 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 720] this Court
observed that "the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the
criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities
concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
commenced". In this case the position is much more serious.
Here, not only the rules of the game were changed, but they
were changed after the game had been played and the results of
the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and
impermissible."
19. The said principle has been reiterated and authoritatively
affirmed by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej
Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court passed in CIVIL
APPEAL No.2634 OF 2013 (decided on 07.09.2024), wherein it has
been held that the doctrine prohibiting change of rules mid-way is
founded on Article 14 of the Constitution of India and strikes at
arbitrariness in matters of public employment governed by Article 16.
The relevant and operative observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
read as under:-
"13. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of
advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies.
It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of
applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination
of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for
interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful
candidates for appointment.
(B) BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE
14. The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through
the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 1412 of the
Constitution. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of
the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words
Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16
gives effect to the concept of equality in all matters relating to
public employment. These two articles strike at arbitrariness in
State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They
require that State action must be based on valid relevant
principles alike to all similarly situate and not to be guided by
any extraneous or irrelevant considerations. In all its actions,
the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. This is
an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary
State action which Article 14 of the Constitution adopts. A
deprivation of the entitlement of private citizens and private
business must be proportional to a requirement grounded in
public interest.
15. The principle of fairness in action requires that public
authorities be held accountable for their representations. Good
administration requires public authorities to act in a predictable
manner and honour the promises made or practices established
unless there is good reason not to do so.
16. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have
legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair
and non-arbitrary. The basis of doctrine of legitimate
expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness
and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals.
It recognises that a public authority‟s promise or past conduct
will give rise to a legitimate expectation. This doctrine is
premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing
their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past
practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it
is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure.17 However,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not impede or hinder
the power of the public authorities to lay down a policy or
withdraw it. The public authority has the discretion to exercise
the full range of choices available within its executive power.
The public authority often has to take into consideration diverse
factors, concerns, and interests before arriving at a particular
policy decision. The courts are generally cautious in interfering
with a bona fide decision of public authorities which denies
legitimate expectation provided such a decision is taken in the
larger public interest. Thus, public interest serves as a
limitation on the application of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation. Courts have to determine whether the public
interest is compelling and sufficient to outweigh the legitimate
expectation of the claimant. While performing a balancing
exercise, courts have to often grapple with the issues of burden
and standard of proof required to dislodge the claim of
legitimate expectation."
20. Further, where the caste/community of the petitioners is
notified as a reserved category in both the State i.e. from which the
Certificate was issued and the State of Madhya Pradesh, rejection of
candidatureship solely on the ground that the Caste Certificate was
issued by another State would be arbitrary and unsustainable.
Reservation being a beneficial provision, it must receive a liberal
and purposive interpretation, so as to advance its object and not
defeat it on technical grounds, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of S. Pushpa & Ors. v. Sivachanmugavelu & Ors.,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
(2005) 3 SCC 1, and affirmed by the Constitutional Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 :
(1992) 22 ATC 385 at page 433 which reads as follows:-
"251. Referring to the concept of equality of opportunity in
public employment, as embodied in Article 10 of the draft
Constitution, which finally emerged as Article 16 of the
Constitution, and the conflicting claims of various communities for
representation in public administration, Dr Ambedkar emphatically
declared that reservation should be confined to „a minority of
seats‟, lest the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In view
of its great importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the
Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But
I shall now read a few passages from it. Dr Ambedkar stated:
"... firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity,
secondly, that there shall be reservations in favour of certain
communities which have not so far had a „proper look-in‟ so to
say into the administration .... Supposing, for instance, we were
to concede in full the demand of those communities who have
not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest
extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely
destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed,
namely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity ....
Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be
consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to
a minority of seats. It is then only that the first principle could
find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation ... we
have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality
of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of
communities which have not had so far representation in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
State, ...". Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. 7, pp. 701-702
(1948-49).
(emphasis supplied)
These words embody the raison d'etre of reservation and its
limitations. Reservation is one of the measures adopted by the
Constitution to remedy the continuing evil effects of prior inequities
stemming from discriminatory practices against various classes of
people which have resulted in their social, educational and
economic backwardness. Reservation is meant to be addressed to
the present social, educational and economic backwardness caused
by purposeful societal discrimination. To attack the continuing ill
effects and perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits
and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when they
have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such measure, in
so far as one group is preferred to the exclusion of another, must
necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the
fundamental constitutional goal.
252. What the Constitution permits is the adoption of suitable
and appropriate remedial measures to correct the continuing evil
effects of prior discrimination. Over-inclusiveness in such measures
by unduly widening the net of reservation to unjustifiably protect
the ill deserved at the expense of the others would result in
invidious discrimination offending the constitutional objective.
Benign classification for affirmative action by reservation must stay
strictly within the narrow bounds of remedial actions. Any such
programme must be consistent with the fundamental objective of
equality. Classes of people saddled with disabilities rooted in
history of purposeful unequal treatment and consequently relegated
to social, educational, economic and political powerlessness
particularly qualify to demand the extraordinary and special
protection of reservation.
253. Reservation is meant to remedy the handicap of prior
discrimination impeding the access of classes of people to public
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
administration. It is for the State to determine whether the evil
effects of inequities stemming from prior discrimination against
classes of people have resulted in their being reduced to positions
of backwardness and consequent under representation in public
administration. Reservation is a remedy or a cure for the ill effects
of historical discrimination.
254. While affirmative action programmes by preferential
treatment short of reservation in favour of disadvantaged classes of
citizens may be justified as benign redressal measures based on
valid classification, the more positive affirmative action adopting
reservation by quota or other „set aside‟ measures or goals in
favour of certain classes of citizens to the exclusion of others must
be narrowly tailored and strictly addressed to the problem which is
sought to be remedied by the Constitution. Any such action by the
State must necessarily be subjected to periodic administrative
review by specially constituted authorities so as to guarantee that
such policies and actions are applied correctly and strictly to
permitted constitutional ends.
255. Reservation is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve
equality. The policy of reservation adopted to achieve that end
must, therefore, be consistent with the objective in view.
Reservation must not outlast its constitutional object, and must not
allow a vested interest to develop and perpetuate itself. There will
be no need for reservation or preferential treatment once equality is
achieved. Achievement and preservation of equality for all classes
of people, irrespective of their birth, creed, faith or language is one
of the noble ends to which the Constitution is dedicated. Every
reservation founded on benign discrimination, and justifiably
adopted to achieve the constitutional mandate of equality, must
necessarily be a transient passage to that end. It is temporary in
concept, limited in duration, conditional in application and specific
in object. Reservation must contain within itself the seeds of its
termination. Any attempt to perpetuate reservation and upset the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
constitutional mandate of equality is destructive of liberty and
fraternity and all the basic values enshrined in the Constitution. A
balance has to be maintained between the competing values and the
rival claims and interests so as to achieve equality and freedom for
all.
256. The makers of the Constitution were fully conscious of the
unfortunate position of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes. To them equality, liberty and fraternity are but a dream; an
ideal guaranteed by the law, but far too distant to reach; far too
illusory to touch. These backward people and others in like
positions of helplessness are the favoured children of the
Constitution. It is for them that ameliorative and remedial measures
are adopted to achieve the end of equality. To permit those who are
not intended to be so specially protected to compete for reservation
is to dilute the protection and defeat the very constitutional aim.
257. The victims of prior injustice are the special favourites of
the laws. Their plight is a shameful scar on the national conscience.
It is a constitutional command that prompt measures are adopted
by the State for the promotion of these unfortunate classes of people
specially to positions of comparative enlightenment, culture,
knowledge, influence, affluence and prestige so as to place them on
levels of equality with the more fortunate of our countrymen.
258. Reservation must one day become unnecessary and a relic
of an unfortunate past. Every such action must be a transient self-
liquidating programme. That is the hope and dream cherished by
the Constitution Makers and that is the end to which the State has
to address itself in making special provisions for the chosen classes
of people for special constitutional protection, so that "persons will
be regarded as persons, and discrimination of the type we address
today will be an ugly feature of history that is instructive but that is
behind us"; Per Justice T. Marshall, Regents of the University of
California v. Allan Bakke [57 L Ed 2d 750 : 438 US 265 (1978)] .
See also H. Earl Fullilove v. Philip M. Klutznick [448 US 448 : 65
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
L Ed 2d 902 (1980)] ; Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. Federal
Communications Commission [58 IW 5053 (decided on June 27,
1990)] ; Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [347 US
483 : 48 L Ed 2d 873 (1954)] ; City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson
Co. [488 US 469] ; Wendy Wygant v. Jackson Board of
Education [476 US 267 : 90 L Ed 2d 260]."
21. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid
terms. The impugned orders are liable to be and are hereby quashed as
the advertisement does not contain any explicit condition requiring
submission of a Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority of
the State of Madhya Pradesh only/alone. This Court thus directs the
respondents to verify whether the caste or community of the petitioners
are recognized as a reserved category in both the States or not and if it
is found that the caste is a reserved caste in both the States, The
Appropriate Authorities shall proceed with the appointments of
petitioners who are found eligible, along with determination of
seniority, notional pay fixation and grant of all consequential benefits
from the date on which other candidates of the same examination/post
were given appointment.
22. The respondents are directed to carry-out such verification and to
take appropriate consequential action in accordance with law within a
period of 60 days from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:920
23. With the aforesaid directions, all the Writ Petitions are hereby
allowed with no order as to costs.
24. A copy of this Order be kept in the records of all the connected
cases.
25. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*/PS
