[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Poonam Aadiwasi (Seharia) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1872
1 WP-17883-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 17883 of 2017
POONAM AADIWASI (SEHARIA)
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Divakar Vyas - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Jain - learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadauria - learned counsel for respondent No.4.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking the following relief(s):
7.1 That, the impugned select list whereby the petitioner was
excluded being appointed on the post of Vanrakshak Annexure P-
4 may kindly be quashed.
7.2 That, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to
give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Vanrakshak
pursuant to her participation in PTG in District Sheopur (M.P.).
7.3 That, any other relief(s) to which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the
petitioner in the interest of justice.
7.4 That, the cost of this petition be also awarded to the
petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is challenging
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1872
2 WP-17883-2017
the action of the respondent in issuing the select list / merit list of the
candidates with respect to the special recruitment of ST (PGYT 2017) which
is called as Vanrakshak Recruitment Examination, 2017. It is further
submitted that the name of petitioner does not find place in the select list and
her name finds place at serial No.2 in the waiting list. It is further submitted
that at the time of issuance of select list, the respondents/authorities did not
follow the law pertaining to women reservation prevalent in the State of
Madhya Pradesh. It is further submitted that there has to be a provision in
each direct recruitment in favour of the female candidates to the extent of
30% horizontal and compartment-wise, however, in the present case, those
statutory rules were not followed by respondents. No female candidate
including petitioner has been selected which is contrary to the Rules 1997.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that in
the advertisement it is specifically mentioned that as per the Gazette
Notification dated 17.11.2015 issued by the GAD, relaxation to women was
already provided.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The relevant part of the advertisement is quoted below for ready
reference and convenience:
(3) म य दे श शासन सामा य शासन वभाग क अिधसूचना .सी-3-
8-2015-एक-3 दनांक 17.11.15 ारा म हलाओं क भत म छूट दान
क गई है , अत: म हलाओं हे तु पृथक से आर त नह ं रखे गये ह।
6. In Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others 1986
(Supp) SCC 285, Supreme Court held as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1872
3 WP-17883-2017
"24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ
petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared
for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after
he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the
examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting
aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts
would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there.
The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in
the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the
conduct of the examination."
7. In Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission
Uttarakhand and others (2011) 1 SCC 150 Supreme Court held as under :-
"24. ....All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection
process and were also fully aware that they must possess the basic
knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft
Operating System and Microsoft Office operation. Knowing the
said criteria, the appellant also appeared in the interview, faced the
questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a
chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage
and now cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure
adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. Reference may be made to Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar
and others (2010) 12 SCC 576, the Supreme Court held as under :-
"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken
part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than
19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner
is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection.
Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he
would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The
petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does
not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This
conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning
the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by
refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection
may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1872
4 WP-17883-2017
[(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603] ,
Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P. [(2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008)
1 SCC (L&S) 68], Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal
[(2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005], Amlan Jyoti
Borooah v. State of Assam [(2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC
(L&S) 627] and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [(2009) 5 SCC
515 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57]"
9. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , the
Supreme Court held clearly as under :-
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the abovenoted
judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process
of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being
made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their
right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by
the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by
entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. Similarly, in Air Commodore Naveen Jain vs. Union of India and
others (2019) 10 SCC 34, the Supreme Court opined as under :-
"23. Apart from the policy, we also find that the appellant is
estopped to challenge the policy after participating in the selection
process on the basis of such policy. It has been so held by this
Court in Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K (1995) 3 SCC 486 :
1995 SCC (L&S) 712 (SCC p.493, para 10).
"10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits
cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who
takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and
who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is
also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit
as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative
merits of the candidates concerned who had been
assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners
successfully urge before us that they were given less
marks though their performance was better. It is for the
Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1872
5 WP-17883-2017
a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits
of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the
light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules
governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment
on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot
be brought in challenge only on the ground that the
assessment was not proper or justified as that would be
the function of an appellate body and we are certainly
not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made
by such an expert committee."
24. In a judgment reported as Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2017) 4 SCC 357 : (2017 1 SCC (L&S) 822, a three Judge Bench
held that the appellants were estopped from turning around and
challenging the selection once they were declared unsuccessful.
The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 364-65, paras 17-19)
"17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [(2013) 11
SCC 309 : (2011) 3 SCC (L&S) 129], candidates who
were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the
State of Uttarakhand participated in a written
examination held in pursuance of an advertisement.
This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the
respondents would not have raised any objection to the
selection process or to the method- ology adopted.
Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the
respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article
226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to
challenge the advertisement or the procedure of
selection. This Court held that: (SCC p.318, para 18).
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes
part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn
around and question the method of selection and its
outcome."
18. In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur [(2014) 10
SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745], it was held that a candidate
who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting
himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn
around and complain that the process of selection was
unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In
Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey [(2015)
11 SCC 493 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 274], this Court held
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1872
6 WP-17883-2017
that: (SCC p. 500, para 17).
"17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division
Bench on one more point that the appellants had
participated in the process of interview and not
challenged it till the results were declared. There was a
gap of almost four months between the interview and
declaration of result. However, the appellants did not
challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when
the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful,
they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is
crystal clear that after having participated in the selection process, without
raising any objection prior to its commencement, petitioner cannot now be
permitted to contend that the advertisement is bad in law. Petitioner is bound
by the principles of estoppel and waiver.
12. In the advertisement, there is no mention whatsoever of any
reservation for women candidates. The petitioner participated in the selection
process as per the advertisement, and once the specific conditions were
mentioned, the petitioner participated in the selection process with open
eyes. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the advertisement.
13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this
petition is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
