[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Avinash Gour vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6707
1 WA-702-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 702 of 2026
DR AVINASH GOUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pradyumna Kibe, learned Government Advocate for respondent
No.1 / State.
Shri Vindhyavasini Prasad Khare & Vijay Gulani, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 / MPPSC.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present intra-court appeal has been filed against the order dated
25.02.2026, by which the learned Single Judge has declined to grant interim
relief to the petitioner, allowing him to submit the form for the post of
Medical Officer.
02. Respondents raised preliminary objection that the appeal against
an interlocutory order is not maintainable.
03. Per contra, counsel for the appellant argued that declining the
interim relief is in the nature of final order as denial of interim relief would
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6707
2 WA-702-2026
cause irreparable loss to the appellant. He has placed reliance upon a
judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind
Kumar Jain & Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in
2007 (3) M.P.L.J. 565 , wherein it has been held that an intra-court appeal is
maintainable against an interlocutory order if its nature is of final.
04. Counsel for the MPPSC also submitted that similar petition
against same advertisement has already been decided by the learned Single
Judge at Jabalpur in the case of Dr. Aniket Agrawal & Others v/s The State
of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No.49460 of 2025) by order
dated 08.02.2026. He also referred to note No.1 of the advertisement and
submits that it was within the competence of respondent No.1 to increase the
number of vacancies. In the event of increase in vacancies, fresh applications
were not to be invited. He argued that it is not in dispute that the appellant
was not possessing the qualification for being considered against the
vacancies by the cut-off date. Undisputedly, the requisite qualification was
acquired by the appellant after the cut-off date.
05. Combating the the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the
appellant argued that the important facts have not been taken into
consideration that the initial advertisement was issued on 08.08.2024
notifying 895 vacancies for the post of Medical Officers and thereafter, the
selection remained pending. Thereafter, in the month of November, 2025
(after more than 15 months), the respondents added additional vacancies for
the post of Medical Officer making it to 1832 posts instead of 895. He
argued that the respondents could not have added such number of vacancies
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6707
3 WA-702-2026
which are substantial in nature. He submitted that in between the period of
two notifications i.e. 08.08.2024 and 04.11.2025, the appellant acquired
qualification and became eligible for participating in the selection. He argued
that the clause which has been considered by the learned Single Judge at
Jabalpur is to be interpreted only as revision / change of post if insignificant
number is added in total vacancies and not such a substantial number of
vacancies about 1000. He argued that under such situation either the
respondents ought to have extended the date for application or ought to have
issued fresh notification so that the aspirants, who had acquired qualification
between these two notifications would have got an opportunity to
participation in the selection. In support of the aforesaid submission, he has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of High Court
of Kerela v/s Reshma A. & Others reported in (2021) 3 SCC 755 and Co-
ordinate Bench at Jabalpur in the case of Shruti Pathak & Others v/s The
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No.8658 of 2025) . Counsel
for the appellant further submits that in other similar matters which are
pending, the writ petitioners have been allowed to submit the form in
pursuant to the advertisement in question for the post of Medical Officer.
However, the learned Single Judge has erroneously declined to grant interim
relief in the present case.
06. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and the fact that the
appeal is against an interlocutory order, we do not consider it apposite to
decide the matter on merit and instead of that, we pass an interim order that
the appellant shall be allowed to fill up the form and in case if the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6707
4 WA-702-2026
interview is notified, the appellant shall also be allowed to participate in the
interview as per merit. However, the result of the appellant shall not be
declared without leave of this Court.
07. The respondents shall file reply expeditiously within a period of
15 days from today in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge is
requested to decide the matter expeditiously considering the nature of the
petition.
08. It is made clear that we have not made any observation on merit
and the learned Single Judge will decide the case on its own merit without
being influenced by the observations made by us in this order.
09. With the aforesaid, Writ Appeal stands allowed & disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
