[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunita Katare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
1 WP-5287-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
WRIT PETITION No. 5287 of 2025
SUNITA KATARE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kapil Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari - Government Advocate for the State.
Reserved on : 15.01.2026
Passed on : 13.03.2026
................................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
making a prayer to quash condition of uploading and submitting guest teacher
certificate at the time of submission of application form and to allow petitioner to
participate in selection process conducted by respondents under guest teacher category.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that as per Rule 12 (6) of
Madhya Pradesh Shasan, School Siksha Vibhak Ke Antergat Madhyamik Shikshak
(Vishay, Khel avam Sangeet-Gayan, Vadan) Prathmik Sikshak (Khel, Sangeet-Gayan,
Vadan avam Nratya) Tatha Madhya Pradesh Shasan, Janjati Karya Vibhag Ke Antergat
Madhyamic Sikshak (Vishay), Prathmik Sikshak (Khel avam Sangeet-Gayan Vadan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
2 WP-5287-2025
avam Nratya), 2024, candidates have to upload documents of educational qualification
and eligibility at the time of document verification and counselling. Recruitment
notification and rules do not provide for any cut-off date or time for uploading guest
faculty experience certificate. MP School Education (teaching cadre) Service
Conditions Recruitment Rules, 2018 does not provide for submission of experience
certificate at the time of application or recruitment year. However, condition has been
imposed in application to submit experience certificate of guest teacher along with
application form. Said condition is arbitrary and is depriving petitioners for applying
under category of guest faculty. This amounts to class discrimination and
impermissible under the Constitution of India. Uploading of experience certificate at
the time of filing of application form is contrary to Rules of 2018 and also contrary to
Rule 12.6 of Examination Rules, 2024. Therefore, said condition may be struck down
and petitioners may be permitted to submit their experience certificate at the time when
documents are called for by the department i.e. at the time of document verification.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that petitioners had not
challenged the MP School Education (teaching cadre) Service Conditions Recruitment
Rules, 2018 and amended Rules, 2024 and also administrative instruction dated
19.11.2025. In absence of challenge to Rules and conditions, same cannot be struck
down.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State submitted that as per
amended Rules of 2018 dated 27.12.2024, petitioners are not having teaching
experience and they illegally want to take benefit by making a prayer for deleting the
condition to upload experience certificate on date of submission of application form.
Without challenge to Rules, said condition cannot be deleted. There is no arbitrariness
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
3 WP-5287-2025
and illegality in imposing aforesaid condition. No interference is called for and petition
may be dismissed.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties.
6. Petitioners had challenged the condition imposed by the respondents on
ground that same is violative of Rule 12.6 of Examination Notification, 2024 and
recruitment notification does not provide for cut-off date or time for uploading guest
teacher experience certificate.
7. Perused Rules 12.6 of Madya Pradesh Shasan, School Siksha Vibhak Ke
Antergat Madhyamik Shikshak (Vishay, Khel avam Sangeet-Gayan, Vadan) Prathmik
Sikshak (Khel, Sangeet-Gayan, Vadan avam Nratya) Tatha Madhya Pradesh Shasan,
Janjati Karya Vibhag Ke Antergat Madhyamic Sikshak (Vishay), Prathmik Sikshak
(Khel avam Sangeet-Gayan Vadan avam Nratya), 2024, which is quoted as under:-
"12.6 संबंिधत वषय क िश क पा ता पर ा 2018 / 2023 म भाग लेने हे तु
यह शत िनधा रत क गई थी क ऐसे आवेदक जो िनधा रत शै णक यावसाियक
यो यता अ जत करने के अंितम वष म है , वे भी संबंिधत वषय क िश क पा ता
पर ा 2018 / 2023 म बैठने हे तु मा य ह गे। ऐसे अ यिथय को चयन पर ा
उपरांत पा पाए जाने पर मे रट म म शै णक यो यता संबंधी अहता अजन क
संदभ ितिथ वभाग म जस दनांक को द तावेज मांगे जायगे उस दनांक को
तुत करते ह गे अथात ् उस ितिथ को अ यथ ारा पर ा अंक सूची / उपािध
धा रत कया जाना अिनवाय होगा । ऐसे अ यथ जनके पास शै णक यो यता
नह ं है अथवा जो िनधा रत शै णक / यावसाियक यो यता अ जत करने के
अंितम वष म अ ययनरत नह ं थे और ु टपूण जानकार दे कर संबंिधत वषय क
िश क पा ता पर ा 2018 / 2023 म स मिलत होकर पा ता अ जत कर ली है तो
ऐसे अ यथ को गलत जानकार दे कर पर ा म स मिलत होने के कारण उनक
अ यिथता िनयु हे तु अमा य क जाएगी।"
8. Aforesaid Rule lays down that if a candidate is in final year of acquiring
educational/professional qualification for relevant post then he will be eligible to
appear in teachers eligibility test 2018/2023 and if candidate is successful then
educational/professional qualification is to be submitted on the date of when said
documents are asked for by the department. Aforesaid Rule reflects that education or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
4 WP-5287-2025
professional qualification can be acquired even after appearing in examination and
candidate must possess the same when State Government demands the document or at
the time of document verification. Rule 12.6 is not contrary to the condition mentioned
in application form. Condition which petitioners wants to get deleted is in respect of
experience certificate. Rule made prescription about educational qualification and
condition lays cut-off date regarding experience. Both operates in different fields,
therefore, it cannot be said that condition to submit experience certificate on date of
uploading application form is contrary to Rules 12.6 of Rules, 2024.
9. Petitioners have raised second ground that no cut-off date has been provided in
Rules of 2018, therefore, said condition cannot be laid down in application form. MP
Education Service (teaching cadre) Service Condition and Recruitment Rules, 2018
was notified on 30.07.2018. Relevant Rule 11 (7)(b)(iv) is quoted as under :-
"11. Procedure of Selection and Appointment through Direct
Recruitment.-
(7) (a) ***
( b ) For each category of vacant posts, the reservation shall be as
under-
(iv) 25-percent vacancies of the total available vacancies shall be
reserved for Athithi Shikshak category who have worked in Government
School for minimum three educational sessions and not less than two
hundred days:
Provided that if the vacancies reserved for Atithi Shikshak remain
vacant they shall be filled from other eligible- candidates."
10. Reservation was up to the extent of 25% and said reservation will be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
5 WP-5287-2025
applicable if guest faculty has worked in three educational sessions for 200 days. Said
Rules were amended by notification dated 27.12.2024 and amended Rule 11(7)(b)(iv)
now stood as under:-
(7) (b) for vacant posts, the horizontal reservation shall be as follows;
(iv) 50 percent vacancies of the total available vacancies of teachers
for direct recruitment shall be reserved for Atithi Shikshak (Guest Teacher)
in each category, who have worked as guest teachers in Government schools
run by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for a minimum of three
academic sessions and a minimum of 200 days. But in case the posts
reserved for Guest Teachers are not filled, the vacant posts shall be filled by
other eligible candidates.
Explanation.- Minimum 3 academic sessions shall be considered
complete only when a minimum of 30 days have been worked as a Guest
Teacher in each session. Apart from this, the total teaching experience of all
the three sessions shall be a minimum of 200 days;"
11. As per amended Rule, reservation for guest faculty was increased to 50% and
reservation shall be applicable if guest faculty has worked for three academic sessions
and minimum of 200 days and in each academic session has worked for 30 minimum
days. Date on which said experience has to be acquired is not notified in amended
Rules. In Rules, it was provided that advertisement and procedure for appointment shall
be specified by an executive order of State Government. If no cut-off date has been
prescribed in Rules of 2018 or in amended notification, it does not mean that said cut-
off date cannot be prescribed by laying down condition in examination form if same is
not in violation or contradictory to any rules.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
6 WP-5287-2025
12. In Rules 11(7)(8)(9), it has also been laid down that procedure for
appointment and preparation of merit list of candidate shall be prescribed by an
executive order of the State Government, therefore, Rule provides for separate
executive order for fixing cut-off date and if no cut-off date has been prescribed in
Rules, 2018, condition imposed on application cannot be said to be contrary to Rules of
2018. As a general rule, a candidate must have experience and qualification on the last
date of submission of application form, if there is no special stipulation in the
notification. If respondents had asked for submission of experience certificate on date
of uploading of application form then same cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal.
Uploading of experience certificate along with application form may be
disadvantageous to individual candidate but same will not make the condition arbitrary
or discriminatory in nature.
13. Apex Court in case of Soumen Paul and Others Vs. Shrabani Nayek and
Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 720 in paragraph No.22 and 23 as held as
under:-
"22. Re : The principle as regards the date by which the candidates for
selection must possess the qualifications, as per the precedents of this Court.
We must also deal with the argument of Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned Sr.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that, as per the principles of
law laid down by this Court that if the recruitment rule or the notification
does not provide a date by which the minimum qualifications must be
possessed, the relevant date shall be the last date for receipt of the
applications. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Bhupinderpal Singh
v. State of Punjab11 formulating certain principles for determining the date
by which candidates must possess eligible qualifications.
23. The issue regarding the date by which candidates for selection must
possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for recruitment is no more
res-integra. Apart from the decision of this Court in Bhupinderpal Singh
(supra) referred to by Mr. Sanyal, there are many other precedents, which
were referred to and considered in a later decision of this Court in Rakesh
Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) 12. The relevant portion of the order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
7 WP-5287-2025
is as follows;
"11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal
proposition that the selection process commences on the
date when applications are invited. Any person eligible
on the last date of submission of the application has a
right to be considered against the said vacancy provided
he fulfils the requisite qualification.
12. In U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana13 ,
this Court, after considering a large number of its earlier
judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be
examined as on the last date for receipt of applications
by the Commission. That too was a case where the
result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the
last date of submission of the applications. This Court
held that as the result does not relate back to the date of
examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be
considered on the last date of submission of
applications, therefore, a candidate, whose result has not
been declared up to the last date of submission of
applications, would not be eligible.
13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in M.V. Nair
v. Union of India14 held as under
"9. ... It is well settled that suitability and
eligibility have to be considered with
reference to the last date for receiving the
applications, unless, of course, the
notification calling for applications itself
specifies such a date."
14. In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab
Instructions 15, this Court held:
"2. ... It is to be seen that when the
recruitment is sought to be made, the last date
has been fixed for receipt of the applications.
Such of those candidates, who possessed of
all the qualifications as on that date, alone are
eligible to apply for and to be considered for
recruitment according to the rules."
15. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of
Rajasthan16 held:
"10. The contention that the required
qualifications of the candidates should be
examined with reference to the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
8 WP-5287-2025
selection and not with reference to the last
date for making applications has only to be
stated to be rejected. The date of selection is
invariably uncertain. In the absence of
knowledge of such date the candidates who
apply for the posts would be unable to state
whether they are qualified for the posts in
question or not, if they are yet to acquire the
qualifications. Unless the advertisement
mentions a fixed date with reference to which
the qualifications are to be judged, whether
the said date is of selection or otherwise, it
would not be possible for the candidates who
do not possess the requisite qualifications in
praesenti even to make applications for the
posts. The uncertainty of the date may also
lead to a contrary consequence viz. even
those candidates who do not have the
qualifications in praesenti and are likely to
acquire them at an uncertain future date, may
apply for the posts thus swelling the number
of applications. But a still worse consequence
may follow, in that it may leave open a scope
for malpractices. The date of selection may
be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain
some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily.
Hence, in the absence of a fixed date
indicated in the advertisement/notification
inviting applications with reference to which
the requisite qualifications should be judged,
the only certain date for the scrutiny of the
qualifications will be the last date for making
the applications. ... Reference in this
connection may also be made to two recent
decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service
Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra17 and
Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential
School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi."
16. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher19 ,
the majority view was as under:
"15. The fact is that the appellants did pass
the examination and were fully qualified for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
9 WP-5287-2025
being selected prior to the date of interview.
By allowing the appellants to sit for the
interview and by their selection on the basis
of their comparative merits, the
recruiting authority was able to get the best
talents available. It was certainly in the
public interest that the interview was made as
broad based as was possible on the basis of
qualification. The reasoning of the learned
Single Judge was thus based on sound
principle with reference to comparatively
superior merits. It was in the public interest
that better candidates who were fully
qualified on the dates of selection were not
rejected, notwithstanding that the results of
the examination in which they had appeared
had been delayed for no fault of theirs. The
appellants were fully qualified on the dates
of the interview and taking into account the
generally followed principle of Rule 37 in
the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of
opinion that the technical view adopted by
the learned Judges of the Division Bench was
incorrect...." However, the opinion of R.M.
Sahai, J. had been that these 33 persons could
not have been allowed to appear for the
interview as they did not possess the requisite
eligibility/qualification on the last date of
submission of applications.
17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok
Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar20 reconsidered and
explained the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993)
observing:
"6. The proposition that where applications
are called for prescribing a particular date as
the last date for filing the applications, the
eligibility of the candidates shall have to be
judged with reference to that date and that
date alone, is a well-established one. A
person who acquires the prescribed
qualification subsequent to such prescribed
date cannot be considered at all. An
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
10 WP-5287-2025
advertisement or notification
issued/published calling for applications
constitutes a representation to the public and
the authority issuing it is bound by such
representation. It cannot act contrary to it.
One reason behind this proposition is that if it
were known that persons who obtained the
qualifications after the prescribed date but
before the date of interview would be
allowed to appear for the interview, other
similarly placed persons could also have
applied. Just because some of the persons
had applied notwithstanding that they had not
acquired the prescribed qualifications by the
prescribed date, they could not have been
treated on a preferential basis. Their
applications ought to have been rejected at
the inception itself. This proposition is
indisputable and in fact was not doubted or
disputed in the majority judgment."
The Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma, (1997) 4 SCC
18 further explained that the majority view in Ashok
Kumar Sharma (1993) was not correct, rather the
dissenting view by R.M. Sahai, J. was correct as the
Court held as under:
"6. ... The reasoning in the majority
opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents
to appear for the interview, the recruiting
authority was able to get the best talent
available and that such course was in
furtherance of public interest is, with respect,
an impermissible justification. It is, in our
considered opinion, a clear error of law and
an error apparent on the face of the record. In
our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division
Bench of the High Court) was right in
holding that the 33 respondents could not
have been allowed to appear for the
interview."
(emphasis supplied)
13. In view of aforesaid, no case is made out for interference, hence, petition is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21597
11 WP-5287-2025
dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
$A
