Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 362
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. …………... of 2024
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5817 of` 2023)
Deependra Yadav and others … Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and others … Respondents
with
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23514 of 2023
&
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27620 of 2023
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted only in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023.
2. One lapse on the part of the State is all it took to generate this
Signature Not Verified
litigation, impacting multitudes of job aspirants in the State of Madhya
Digitally signed by
Nisha Khulbey
Date: 2024.05.01
17:28:16 IST
Reason:
Pradesh. The lapse was the amendment of an existing service rule on
1
17.02.2020 which was recalled thereafter on 20.12.2021, restoring the rule
to its original position, but in the interregnum that amended rule was
applied to an ongoing recruitment process. This prompted several
challenges before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur resulting
in a spate of orders and directions leading up to these cases before us.
3. The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC)
issued an advertisement on 14.11.2019 proposing to select candidates for
571 posts in the State services in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh
State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 2015’).
The Rules of 2015 were framed in exercise of power under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Madhya Pradesh State Service
Examination-2019 was scheduled to be held by the MPPSC for filling up
these posts, by conducting a preliminary examination followed by the main
examination and interviews. The preliminary examination took place on
12.01.2020. The total number of candidates who registered for the
preliminary examination stood at 3,64,877 but only 3,18,130 of them
actually appeared for the examination. At that stage, on 17.02.2020, Rule 4
of the Rules of 2015 was amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Rule
4, as it stood prior to the amendment and to the extent relevant for the
purposes of this adjudication, read as under:
2
‘Rule 4. Mode of preparation of select list.
(1)(a)(i) On the basis of marks obtained in Preliminary Examination,
candidates numbering 15 times the vacancies as advertised category wise
will be declared successful for Main examination subject to the condition
that candidates have scored minimum passing marks as may be specified
by the Commission. In addition to this, all the other candidates who get
marks equal to “Cut Off Marks” will also be declared successful for the
main examination.
(ii) Firstly, a list of Candidates of unreserved category shall be prepared.
This list will include the candidates selected on the basis of the common
merit from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes, who have not taken any advantage/relaxation given to the
concerned category.
(iii) Secondly, separate lists of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes will be prepared.
……
(d) A common list of successful candidates shall be prepared after the
preparation of all four lists, and examination result will be declared
thereafter. This list will be roll number wise.’
4. It is clear from a bare reading of the above Rule 4 that the result
of the preliminary examination was to be declared by clubbing meritorious
reservation category candidates, who had not availed any reservation
benefit, with the meritorious unreserved category candidates and not with
their respective reservation category candidates. While so, the amendment
effected on 17.02.2020 brought about a sea change in this methodology. To
the extent relevant, the amended Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015 read thus:
3
‘ 4. Mode of preparation of select list: -
(1)(a)(I) On the basis of marks obtained in Preliminary Examination, -
category wise candidates numbering 15 times of the vacancies as
advertised will be declared successful for Main examination subject to the
condition that candidates have scored minimum passing marks as may be
specified by the Commission. In addition to this, all the other candidates
who get marks equal to “Cut Off Marks” will also be declared successful
for the main examination.
(II) Separate Lists of Candidates applied in Unreserved, Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Economically
Weaker Section shall be prepared. Reservation shall be given to Women
and ExServicemen in all categories as per rules and instructions issued in
this regard from time to time.
……
(d) A common list of successful candidates shall be prepared after the
preparation of all five lists, and there after examination result will be
declared. This list will be roll number wise.
……
(3)(d)(I) Results of Preliminary/Main Examination, the candidates shall be
declared in the category mentioned as their category in their online
application form.
(II) Candidates of reserved category (Scheduled caste/Scheduled
Tribe/Other Backwards Classes/Economically Weaker Section) who get
selected like general category candidates without any relaxation shall not
be adjusted against the posts reserved for those reserved categories.
They shall be adjusted against vacancies of unreserved category.
(III) But above adjustment will only be at the time of final selection, not at
the time of preliminary/main examination.’
5. In effect, the amended Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015 provided that
adjustment and segregation of meritorious reservation category candidates
4
with meritorious unreserved category candidates would be only at the time
of final selection and not at the time of the preliminary/main examination.
6. Surprisingly, the amended Rule 4 was applied to the ongoing
recruitment process relating to the notified 571 vacant posts. The result of
the preliminary examination conducted on 12.01.2020 was declared on
21.12.2020, applying the amended Rule 4. Thus, there was no segregation
of meritorious reservation category candidates with those from the
unreserved category and they were shown in their respective reservation
categories only. The number of candidates who cleared the preliminary
examination on this basis were 10,767.
7. While so, the vires of amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of
2015 was challenged by some of the candidates in a batch of writ petitions
before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. By interim order
dated 22.01.2021 passed in those cases, the High Court directed that the
recruitment process initiated pursuant to the preliminary examination result
dated 21.12.2020 shall remain subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.
Pursuant thereto, the MPPSC conducted the main examination of the
Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination-2019 from 21.03.2021 to
26.03.2021. While so, on 20.12.2021, the Rules of 2015 were again
amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereby, the position existing
5
prior to the amendment effected on 17.02.2020 was restored. The newly
amended Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015 read thus:
4(1)(a)(i) On the basis of marks obtained in the preliminary examination
category wise candidates 20 times the number of advertised vacancies
shall be declared successful for the main examination subject to the
condition that the candidates have secured such minimum passing marks
as may be specified by the Commission. In addition, all other candidates
who have obtained marks equal to the ‘cut off marks’ shall also be
declared qualified for the main examination.
(ii) First of all, the cut off marks of unreserved category shall be
determined. After this, those candidates belonging to the reserved
category (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Economically Weaker Sections) who have obtained marks more than
or equal to the prescribed “cut off” of the unreserved category and who
have taken the benefit of relaxations from time to time, shall be included in
the respective category by separating them from the list of unreserved
category.
(iii) In the second phase, category-wise cut off marks of the reserved
candidates shall be determined by preparing category-wise separate lists
of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections.
…..
(c) After preparation of all the five lists, a common list of eligible candidates
shall be prepared and thereafter the result shall be declared roll number
wise.
8. Further, the amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) was altogether omitted
from the Rules of 2015. The result of such omission and Rule 4(1)(a)(ii), as
it presently reads, is that meritorious reservation category candidates, who
6
did not avail any benefit of relaxation, are to be clubbed with meritorious
unreserved category candidates at the time of declaring the result of the
preliminary examination itself. In effect, status quo ante was restored.
9. Notwithstanding this amendment, the result of the main
examination held between 21.03.2021 and 26.03.2021 was declared by the
MPPSC on 31.12.2021 and the number of candidates who provisionally
qualified for interviews were 1918. However, by judgment dated
07.04.2022, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur partly allowed the pending writ petitions, viz ., W.P. No. 542 of
2021 and batch, titled ‘Kishor Choudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and another’ . Challenge in this batch of cases was not only to the validity
of amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 but also to Section 4(4) of
the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon
aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (for brevity,
‘the Adhiniyam’). Section 4(4) of the Adhiniyam reads as follows: -
‘4(4). If a person belonging to any of the categories mentioned in
sub-section (2) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open
competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against
the vacancies reserved for such category under sub-section (2).’
The Division Bench upheld the validity of Section 4(4) of the
Adhiniyam but declared Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 ultra vires and
7
set it aside. The Division Bench directed that, resultantly, the recruitment
process must be conducted and completed in consonance with the
unamended Rules of 2015.
10. Thereupon, the MPPSC issued Advertisement dated 29.09.2022
proposing to reconduct the main examination in compliance with the
Division Bench judgment. This examination was proposed to be conducted
in the second week of January, 2023. Further, on 10.10.2022, the MPPSC
declared the revised result of the preliminary examination, in tune with the
unamended Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015. In consequence, 13,080
candidates were declared qualified for the main examination, instead of the
10,767 candidates declared eligible earlier as per amended Rule 4(3)(d)
(III).
11. While so, some candidates filed W.P. No. 23828 of 2022 before
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur assailing the decision of the
MPPSC to cancel the result of the main examination held earlier on the
ground that they would be required to reappear for the said examination
despite clearing it in the first instance. The petitioners in SLP (C) No. 5817
of 2023, from which this appeal arises, intervened in the said writ petition
and they were also heard. This writ petition was filed on 13.10.2022.
8
12. At that stage, Review Petition Nos. 1112 and 1175 of 2022 were
filed seeking clarification of the judgment dated 07.04.2022 in Kishor
Choudhary ( supra ). However, by order dated 18.11.2022, the Division
Bench disposed of the review petitions leaving it open to the writ Court to
consider and interpret its earlier judgment dated 07.04.2022. This order
was passed as the Division Bench was informed of the fact that a fresh writ
petition, viz ., W.P. No. 23828 of 2022, was pending consideration.
13. A learned Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed
W.P. No. 23828 of 2022 and batch, titled ‘ Harshit Jain and others vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another’ on 29.11.2022. Therein, the
learned Judge noted that four categories of candidates emerged:
(i) the newly qualified reservation category candidates for the main
examination (2,721, in number), as per the result dated 10.10.2022;
(ii) 1,918 select list candidates, who had passed the main examination
held from 21.03.2021 to 26.03.2021 and qualified for the interview;
(iii) candidates out of these 1,918 candidates, who would be ousted from
that select list of 1,918 candidates, if the special main examination is
conducted and the results are normalized; and
(iv) 8,894 candidates, out of the 10,767 candidates, who had appeared
for the main examination earlier but could not pass it.
9
14. The learned Judge observed that if the result of the main
examination was cancelled, a premium would be given to the candidates
from the fourth category by reviving their candidature, though they had
failed to qualify in the first instance, and a right would be taken away from
candidates who had already cleared the main examination and qualified for
the interview. The learned Judge opined that this would cause serious
prejudice and grave injustice to candidates who were declared eligible and
had qualified in the short-listing process and that holding the entire main
examination afresh would not only result in incurring huge costs but would
also cause grave injustice to a large number of candidates, who had
already cleared the main examination and were short-listed for the
interview, without any fault on their part. Holding so, the learned Judge
invalidated the decision taken by the MPPSC on 10.10.2022, proposing to
hold a fresh main examination by cancelling the earlier one, and directed
the MPPSC to hold a special main examination, as was done by it earlier
on several occasions, for the new eligible reservation category candidates,
as per the redrawn preliminary examination result. The learned Judge
directed that, on the basis of the results of these two main examinations, a
fresh list of selected candidates should be prepared in terms of the Rules of
2015 for the interview, by merging and normalizing the two lists, as per the
10
process adopted by the MPPSC on previous occasions. This exercise was
directed to be completed within six months.
15. Aggrieved by this judgment, three of the petitioners in SLP (C)
No. 5817 of 2023 preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High
Court. By judgment dated 25.01.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1706 of
2022, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the order
passed by the learned Judge was just, proper and well-reasoned and did
not call for any interference.
16. The judgment dated 25.01.2023 of the Division Bench was
assailed before this Court in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023, from which the
present appeal arises. By order dated 10.04.2023, this Court rejected the
prayer therein for interim relief but directed that, in the interest of justice,
any proceedings/processes pursuant to the advertisement in question shall
remain subject to the final orders to be passed in this case.
17. Prior thereto, by Advertisement dated 10.01.2023, the MPPSC
notified that the main examination for the new candidates as per the
revised preliminary examination result would be held from 15.04.2023 to
20.04.2023 in compliance with the judgment dated 29.11.2022 in W.P. No.
23828 of 2022. Thereafter, by order dated 13.01.2023, the MPPSC
declared ineligible for interview some of the candidates who had cleared
11
the main examination in the first instance. This was on the basis of the
revised preliminary examination result, whereby 398 candidates out of the
1918 candidates who had cleared the earlier main examination stood
ousted at the preliminary examination stage.
18. Challenging the order dated 13.01.2023, some of the affected
candidates approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur,
vide Writ Petition No. 4783 of 2023 and batch. The said batch of cases,
tiled ‘Vaishali Wadhwani and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
and another’ , was disposed of by a learned Judge of the High Court by
judgment dated 23.08.2023. The learned Judge partly allowed those cases,
but directed the MPPSC to merge and normalize the result of the first main
examination and the result of the special main examination, held on the
strength of the revised preliminary examination result, as directed in
Harshit Jain ( supra ). Thereafter, the same learned Judge disposed of Writ
Petition No. 25087 of 2023, titled ‘Priyanka Pandey vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and another’ , by judgment dated 07.10.2023, holding
that his judgment in Vaishali Wadhwani ( supra ) was a judgment in rem
and would apply to all the candidates who passed the main examination in
the first instance and directed the MPPSC not to discriminate between
candidates who approached the Court and those who did not.
12
19. The special main examination for the reservation category
candidates who were declared eligible, in terms of the revised preliminary
examination result, was conducted from 15.04.2023 to 20.04.2023. Their
results were declared on 18.05.2023, after normalizing and merging the
results of both the main examinations. The process of normalization of the
results of the two main examinations was effected by the MPPSC in
consultation with and under the guidance and advice of two experts.
Normalization was undertaken in the context of the marks obtained by
candidates in the two main examinations by applying a formula, so as to
bring them all on an even keel. Thereby, 1983 candidates stood qualified
for the interview. Out of the 1983 candidates declared qualified for the
interview, 1,520 candidates figured in the list of 1918 candidates declared
eligible earlier, on the strength of the first main examination, and the
remaining 463 candidates emerged successful either in the special main
examination or in the normalization process. Totally, 398 candidates out of
the 1918 candidates, who were declared eligible for the interview earlier,
stood ousted and were no longer eligible.
20. The MPPSC then issued Notification dated 23.06.2023, calling
upon the 1983 selected candidates to appear for the interviews. Some of
the ousted 398 candidates filed writ petitions before the High Court and
13
were granted interim relief, by permitting them also to appear for the
interviews. Interviews were conducted from 09.08.2023 to 19.10.2023.
21. The MPPSC filed Writ Appeal No. 2017 of 2023, aggrieved by
the judgment in Vaishali Wadhwani ( supra ), on the ground that it
proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the normalization process
was applied to the marks secured in the preliminary examination and not in
the two main examinations held thereafter. By interim order dated
19.12.2023, a Division Bench of the High Court stayed the order dated
23.08.2023 passed in Vaishali Wadhwani ( supra ). Aggrieved thereby,
Vaishali Wadhwani and others filed miscellaneous applications, seeking
vacating of the stay granted by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 2017
of 2023. These applications were dismissed on 12.02.2024.
22. We are informed that the State of Madhya Pradesh proceeded
on the strength of the results declared after the normalization and also
issued appointment orders to the selected candidates, thereby enabling
them to join service. Insofar as the seven petitioners in SLP (C) No. 5817 of
2023 are concerned, the MPPSC stated that only three of them had cleared
the preliminary examination, as per the pre-revised result dated
21.12.2020, and were eligible to write the main examination. However, one
of them did not appear for the main examination while the other two did and
14
failed. Thereafter, all seven of them were declared eligible, in terms of the
revised preliminary examination result dated 10.10.2022, but they failed the
special main examination and in the process of normalization held
thereafter, as per the results declared on 18.05.2023.
23. Be it noted that Vaishali Wadhwani and others, the petitioners in
Writ Petition No. 4783 of 2023 and batch, were successful before the High
Court to some extent inasmuch as their writ petitions were partly allowed by
the judgment dated 23.08.2023, but directing the MPPSC to merge and
normalize the two lists, i.e., the result of the first main examination and the
result of the special main examination. They, however, chose to file SLP (C)
No. 23514 of 2023 before this Court against the said judgment dated
23.08.2023. As already noted hereinabove , Writ Appeal No. 2017 of 2023
was filed against the very same judgment by the MPPSC before a Division
Bench of the High Court and the said appeal is pending consideration.
More importantly, the petitions filed therein by Vaishali Wadhwani and
others, seeking the vacating of the stay of the judgment dated 23.08.2023,
were dismissed and that order was not subjected to challenge by them.
Having sought vacating of the stay order passed in relation to the judgment
dated 23.08.2023, in effect, seeking implementation thereof, it is surprising
that Vaishali Wadhwani and the others sought to challenge the very same
15
judgment before this Court. In any event, even if they have any grievance
with the said judgment, it is not open to them to bypass the remedy of
appeal available to them before the High Court itself. We are, therefore, not
inclined to entertain their special leave petition.
24. Similarly, Mamta Mishra, who was also a petitioner in Writ
Petition No. 4783 of 2023 along with Vaishali Wadhwani, chose to file SLP
(C) No. 27620 of 2023 assailing the judgment dated 23.08.2023 passed
therein. For reasons alike, as stated in the context of SLP (C) No. 23514 of
2023 filed by Vaishali Wadhwani and others, this special leave petition also
does not merit consideration.
25. I.A. No. 102595 of 2023 was filed by four candidates seeking to
come on record in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023. They claimed to be similarly
situated to Deependra Yadav, the first petitioner therein. IA No. 132609 of
2023 was filed by two of the 398 ousted candidates, seeking to be
impleaded in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023. I.A. No. 228055 was filed by 182
candidates seeking to come on record in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023, so as
to support the petitioners therein. They stated that they stood ousted after
normalization and merger of the marks secured by candidates in the two
main examinations. However, as grievances of candidates who appeared in
the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination-2019 are not personal or
16
individual to them alone and we are concerned with resolving the larger
issue, we do not consider it necessary to implead any of these individual
candidates who were not parties before the High Court or give them a
hearing. In any event, all the relevant issues and aspects have been
comprehensively and conclusively addressed by the learned senior
counsel/counsel appearing for the parties on record and nothing more
remains to be added thereto.
26. Further, we had requested the two experts, who had guided the
MPPSC in undertaking the process of normalization, to appear before us
so as to explain the methodology adopted. Having heard the two experts,
namely Dr. Vastashpati Shastri and Mr. Indresh Mangal, we are fully
satisfied that a transparent process, which was completely above board,
was adopted to bring all the candidates onto an even platform so as to
finalize the list of candidates eligible to be interviewed. This was done by
applying a formula uniformly to the marks secured by all the candidates
who appeared in the two main examinations, so that their marks would
become comparable and enable preparation of a unified marks list.
27. Significantly, in State of U.P. and others vs. Atul Kumar
1
Dwivedi and others , this Court had occasion to consider application of
moderation/scaling of marks in a recruitment process and as to when such
1
(2022) 11 SCC 578
17
an exercise would be permissible. It was observed that normalization of
marks means increasing and/or decreasing the marks obtained by students
in different timing sessions (shifts) to a certain number, as observed by the
High Court in its judgment, and it was noted that such normalization
techniques help in comparing corresponding normalized values from two or
more different data sets in a way that it eliminates the effects of the
variation in the scale of the data sets, i.e., a data set with large values can
be easily compared with a data set of smaller values and the normalized
score/percentile is obtained by applying a formula. This Court, accordingly,
concluded that the exercise undertaken in adopting the process of
normalization was quite consistent with the requirements of law. This Court
further observed that decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public
Service Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless
instances of arbitrary and malafide exercise of power are made out.
28. On similar lines, in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others v. State of
2
Jammu and Kashmir and others , this Court observed that interference in
the selection process for public employment should generally be avoided,
recognizing the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the
selection process. Noting that Courts would recognize that the process of
selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 344
18
would not be appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a
selection committee, it was observed that it is not within the domain of the
Court, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a
selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert
domain of a selection committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there
are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only
in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene.
29. The detailed explanation by the experts being rather technical,
we do not propose to burden this judgment with the same, but the learned
senior counsel/counsel opposing the MPPSC, who also heard the experts,
did not bring to our notice any lacuna in the process adopted or the formula
applied, whereby injustice was done to any candidate or any arbitrariness
crept in. We, therefore, hold that the process of normalization and the
consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who
appeared in the two main examinations cannot be found fault with.
30. We may also note that Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015
patently harmed the interests of the reservation category candidates, as
even meritorious candidates from such categories, who had not availed any
reservation benefit/relaxation, were to be treated as belonging to those
reservation categories and they were not to be segregated with meritorious
19
unreserved category candidates at the preliminary examination result
stage. As a result, they continued to occupy the reservation category slots
which would have otherwise gone to deserving reservation category
candidates lower down in the merit list of that category, had they been
included with meritorious unreserved category candidates on the strength
of their marks.
3
31. In Saurav Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others , a
3-Judge Bench of this Court affirmed the principle that candidates
belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories would be entitled to
be selected in the ‘open category’ and if such candidates belonging to
reservation categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own
merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the
categories of vertical reservation that they belong to. It was further
observed that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are methods of
ensuring representation in public services and these are not to be seen as
rigid ‘slots’, where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles him to be
shown in the open general category, is foreclosed. The Bench further
observed that the ‘open category’ is open to all and the only condition for a
candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation
benefit of either type was available to him or her.
3
(2021) 4 SCC 542
20
32. This being the settled legal position, it appears that the State of
Madhya Pradesh itself realized the harm that it was doing to the reservation
category candidates and chose to restore Rule 4, as it stood earlier, which
enabled drawing up the result of the preliminary examination by
segregating deserving meritorious reservation category candidates with
meritorious unreserved category candidates at the preliminary examination
stage itself. As this was the process that was undertaken after the judgment
in Kishor Choudhary ( supra ), whereby a greater number of reservation
category candidates cleared the preliminary examination and were held
eligible to appear in the main examination, there can be no dispute with the
legality and validity of such process.
33. We may also note that the judgment in Kishor Choudhary
( supra ) was not subjected to challenge before this Court after the dismissal
of the review petitions. The direction therein was to conduct and complete
the examination process in accordance with the unamended Rules of the
2015. It was the later judgment in Harshit Jain ( supra ) that advocated the
methodology of holding a special main examination for the reservation
category candidates who were found eligible after revising the preliminary
examination result in keeping with the unamended Rules of 2015. This
direction was found to be justified by the Division Bench, which dismissed
21
the writ appeal by way of the impugned judgment and, in our considered
opinion, rightly so.
34. On the above analysis, we find that the impugned judgment
dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 1706 of 2022 does not
brook interference on any ground, be it on facts or in law.
The civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023 is,
therefore, bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Further, as already mentioned hereinbefore, we are not inclined
to entertain and consider SLP (C) Nos. 23514 and 27620 of 2023 on
merits. The two SLPs are dismissed.
Pending I.A.s shall also stand dismissed.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.
………………………..,J
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
………………………..,J
(SANJAY KUMAR)
May 1, 2024;
New Delhi.
22