[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Seema Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2082
1 WP-18598-2017
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. 18598 of 2017
SMT. SEEMA PARIHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Pratap Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Jain - Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Respondent be directed to award 124 marks which has been
awarded to her at the time of submission of answer sheet and
declare her successful candidate in the test of supervisor.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that advertisement was
issued for recruitment on the post of Supervisor (Female), Anganwadi
worker. Petitioner was working as Anganwadi worker, therefore, she
submitted her candidature by submitting examination form. The mode of
examination was online examination. Petitioner appeared in the examination
and performed her examination. At the time of final submission of text paper
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2082
2 WP-18598-2017
the score of petitioner was shown as 124 but when the final result was
declared by the respondents, the marks of petitioner was shown to be 121.76
only. It is further submitted that there is no provision for revaluation or re-
totaling or rechecking.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has
submitted that petitioner secured only 104.36 marks out of 220 in direct
category and her name in the waiting list at serial no.62852. Petitioner also
got 121.76 marks in (Aganwadi Karykarta) category and her name is shown
in waiting list as sr.no.615 (UR/NIL) and 31 (Category/Nil). It is further
submitted that the marks of petitioner was calculated as per formula
prescribed for normalized mark as per clause no.2.13 b and in the aforesaid
advertisement, there is specifically mentioned that for knowing more about
the normalization process to see the PEB website. The marks has been
awarded as per the normalization method because the entire process of
examination of question has been conducted in more than one shift.
Petitioner neither filed any documents to show that she got 124 marks nor
submitted any complaint in this regard to the authority at the time of
declaration of result. Petitioner received marks as per the marksheet (Annex.
P/4) and her name in the waiting list, so no right accrued in her favour. He
also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment corporation and Anr.
Vs. Diamond and Gem Development corporation limited and another
reported in 2013(5) SCC 470 and in case of State of Orissa and another Vs.
Rajkishore Nanda and Ors. reported in 2010 (6) SCC 777.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2082
3 WP-18598-2017
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The petitioner secured only 104.36 marks out of 220 in direct
category and her name in the waiting list at serial no.62852 and she also got
121.76 marks in (Aganwadi Karyakart) category and her name is shown in
waiting list as serial no.615 (UR/Nil) and 31 (Category/Nil), therefore, she
has no legal right to file present petition and writ of mandamus cannot be
issued for creating the right, it can only be issued for established right as per
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State
Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Anr. (supra).
However, it is well established law that mere selection does not accrue or
create any legal right in favor of candidate as per law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Rajkishore Nanda (supra) .
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this
petition is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
