Jai Hind Singh Rajpoot vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33199
1 WP-43517-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 43517 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030291552026
JAI HIND SINGH RAJPOOT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Upendra Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the orders impugned dated 04.08.2016 (Annexure P/1),
27.06.2012 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure
P/3) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That, the respondents be further directed that keeping in view
of the facts that identically placed persons have been reinstated in
services, hence, the direction deserves to be issued to the
respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner applying
parity formula in the employment, in the interest of justice.
(iii) That, the respondents be further directed to extend all
consequential benefits while reinstating in services including
arrears of salary and other benefits.
(iv) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and
circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the
costs throughout may also be granted."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 31-Oct-26
12:36:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33199
2 WP-43517-2026
applied for the post of Patwari in District Datia and, despite being selected
for training, was not granted appointment, which compelled him to file W.P.
No. 6779/2012 (S). The said petition was allowed by this Court, observing
that more meritorious candidates had been migrated from the unreserved
category to the reserved category, thereby depriving the petitioner, who
belongs to the OBC category, of the benefit of selection. As per
advertisement issued in the year 2008, the last date for submission of form
was 07.07.2008, relevant clauses of said advertisement regarding last date
and qualification are quoted below:
4.
भरा आवेदन प जमा करनाः
हुआ
- 07.07.2008
भरा आवेदन प तक म डल काया लय म डाक ारा या
हुआ
यगत प से ा हो जाना चा #हये । िनधा 'रत ितिथ के प )ात् ा
-
आवेदन प + को िनर ,त माना जायेगा।
The matter was directed to be reconsidered. However, upon
reconsideration, the respondents rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground
that his computer diploma was obtained after the cut-off date of 07.07.2008.
It is further submitted that out of the 43 posts of Patwari advertised in
District Datia, 13 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, 5 for
OBC candidates and 25 were unreserved, with 30% reservation for women.
The petitioner secured 109.46 marks in the examination conducted by the
Professional Examination Board on 24.08.2008 and was placed at Serial No.
113 in the OBC waiting list and Serial No. 340 in the unreserved waiting list.
During counselling, several candidates were rejected on account of
deficiencies in their computer diplomas, pursuant to which the petitioner was
selected in the unreserved category and sent for training at Morena. The
petitioner completed nine months of training and also cleared the final
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 31-Oct-26
12:36:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33199
3 WP-43517-2026
examination; however, despite repeated requests, no appointment order was
issued in his favour.
3. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the order dated
21.09.2011 passed in W.P. No. 6299/2011, the petitioner submitted a
representation, which was decided by the Collector vide order dated
31.12.2011. However, the petitioner's claim was partly rejected and partly
kept pending in view of the decision awaited in W.P. No. 1407/2010, Ajay
Singh Dangi. It is contended that the petitioner's computer diploma
examination was conducted in June 2008 and the result was declared on
08.09.2008. Therefore, treating 07.07.2008 as the cut-off date for possessing
the diploma, without disclosing any valid basis for prescribing such date, is
arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is also submitted that similarly situated
candidates, who obtained their computer diplomas after the alleged cut-off
date, have been granted appointments, whereas the petitioner has been
denied the same benefit. The respondents have failed to explain the rationale
for prescribing the cut-off date and have acted discriminatorily, despite the
issue relating to migration of candidates and the relevant cut-off date having
been considered by this Court in earlier proceedings. In view of the aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order rejecting the petitioner's claim is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary
to law and prays that the same be quashed and the respondents be directed to
reconsider the petitioner's candidature and grant him appointment to the post
of Patwari with consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
4 . Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate opposed the prayer made by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 31-Oct-26
12:36:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33199
4 WP-43517-2026
counsel for the petitioner. He further submitted that by order dated
8.03.2011, passed in W.P. No. 2871/2010 (Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar v.
State of M.P.) the Division Bench of this Court has already decided that cut-
off date i.e 07.07.2008 cannot be extended. He further relied upon the case of
Sanjay Datt Dubey v. State of M.P. and Ors., 2022 (1) MPLJ 105 wherein
it has also been held that appointment made is bad in law as the educational
qualification prescribed in Patwari Examination, acquired after cut offe date
i.e 07.07. 2008. He submitted that in the present case, there appears same
situation. Hence, he supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of
the present petition.
5. Heard the counsel of both the parties and perused the record.
6. It is settled position that if cut-off date is not prescribed, then the last
date of submission of form is cut-off date as per judgement dated
08.03.2011 passed in W.P. No. 2871/2010 , relevant para of which is quoted
herein below:-
"11.Accordingly, we hold and answer the question referred to us
by holding that the circular dated 27.7.2009 and 26.08.2009 do not
extend the cut-off date for acquiring eligibility or educational
qualification upto 30th of November, 2009, it only applies to such
of the candidates who already acquired the qualification prior to
7.7.2008 who had submitted the degree certificates or diploma
certificates issued by a particular institute. The circular only
permits such candidates to submit the degree diploma certificates
issued under the seal and signature of the university on or before
30th of November, 2009."
7. Further, Relevant para in the case of Sanjay Datt Dubey (supra) is
quoted herein below:-
"25. As private respondents did not have educational qualification
prescribed in Patwari Examination 2008 on cutoff date i.e. on 7-7-
2008 therefore, their appointment is bad in law. Respondent No.1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 31-Oct-26
12:36:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33199
5 WP-43517-2026
is directed to take action in case of private respondents in W.P No.
10216/2012 and W.P No. 1293/2013 accordingly."
8. In the another judgement, the division Bench also held in W.A. No.
207/2017 (Ravi Soni v. State of M.P.) by Judgement dated 17.4.2017 , as
under:-
"In view of the decision of Division Bench rendered in the case of
Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar & others Vs State of M.P & others
passed in WP No. 2871/2010 (s) dated 08/03/2011 the issue
involved herein is no more res-integra.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that other equally
situated candidates who acquired qualification subsequent to the
cut-off date were given benefit by Annexure P-4, Annexure P-5
and Annexure P-6. The appellant is thus seeking negative parity
which is de-horse the constitutional scheme. If a benefit has been
wrongly extended by the State then the same can not be repeated
by judicial interference on the anvil of similar treatment. Article
14/16 of Constitution of India do not recognize negative parity as
a good ground. This court is bolstered in its view by the Apex
Court decision in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan
Singh reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 wherein the Apex Court held
thus:-" by now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before
law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it can not be
enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality
or irregularity has been committed in favor of any individual or a
group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a
judicial forum, other can not invoke the jurisdiction of the higher
or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity
or illegality or for passing wrong order Chandigarh Admn. V
Jagjit Singh, Jaipur Development Authority V Daulat Mal Jain,
Union of India Vs J.V. Subhaiah, Gurusharan Singh V. NDMC,
State of Haryana V. Ram Kumar Mann, Faridabad CT. Scan
Centre V. D.G. Health Services, Style (Dress Land) V. UT,
Chandigarh, State of Bihar V Kameshar Prasad Singh, Union of
India V. International Trading Co. and Directorate of Film
Festival V. Gaurav Ashwin Jain". And the same dictum has been
followed in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs Chadreshwar
Pathak, (2014) 13 SCC 232."
9. The law with respect to the fact that a candidate should have all the
required qualification on the cut off date is no more res intergra. The
Hon Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 31-Oct-26
12:36:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33199
6 WP-43517-2026
Misra reported in 2017 (11) SCC 521 has held as under:
"6. The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility
qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who
does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the
time of submission of application or by the cut off date, if any,
described under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not
eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here
that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in
any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed
qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who
did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could
not be compared with a candidate who possess the prescribed
qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post.
Therefore, the so-called confession made by the officer in the
Court that persons haying lower merit than the respondent have
been appointed as SDI (Basic), having been based on
misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned single Judge
clearly erred in relying on such a statement for issuing the
direction for appointment of the respondent. The Division Bench
was equally in error in confirming the judgment of the learned
single Judge. Thus the judgment of the learned single Judge as
confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set
aside."
10. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
Sharma and others vs. Chander Shekhar and another, reported in (1997) 4
SCC 18 has held as under:
"6....... The proposition that where applications are called for
prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the
applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be
judged with reference to that date and that dat e alone, is a well-
established one. A person who acquires the prescribed
qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be
considered at all. An 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
similiarly 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
application ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 31-Oct-26
12:36:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33199
7 WP-43517-2026
proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed
in the majority Judgement. This is also the proposition affirmed in
Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others
[1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168]. The reasoning in majority opinion
that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the
Recruiting Authority was able to get the bests talent available and
that such course was in furtherence of public interest is, with
respect, an impermissible Justification It is, in our considered
opinion, a clear error of low 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 allowed to appear for interview."
11. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar K. Mandal
and others vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 519 has
held as under:
"What happens when a cut off date is fixed for fulfilling the
prescribed qualification relating to age by a candidate for
appointment and the effect of any non-prescription has been
considered by this Court in several cases. The principles culled out
from the decisions of this Court are as follows:
(1) The cut off date by reference to which the eligibility
requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public
employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules; (2)
If there is no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date
shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling
for applications; and (3) If there is no such date appointed then the
eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date
appointed by which the applications were to be received by the
competent authority."
12. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh
and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262 has
held as under:-
"14. In view of several decisions of this Court relied on by the
High Court and referred to herein above, it was expected of the
State Government notifying the vacancies to have clearly laid
down and stated the cut off date by reference to which the
applicants were required to satisfy their eligibility. This was not
done. It was pointed out on behalf of the several
appellants/petitioners before this Court that the practice prevalent
in Punjab has been to determine the eligibility by reference to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 31-Oct-26
12:36:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33199
8 WP-43517-2026
date of interview and there are innumerable cases wherein such
candidates have been seeking employment as were not eligible on
the date of making the applications or the last date appointed for
receipt of the applications but were in the process of acquiring
eligibility qualifications and did acquire the same by the time they
were called for and appeared at the interview. Several such
persons have been appointed but no one has challenged their
appointments and they have continued to be in public
employment. Such a loose practice, though prevalent, cannot be
allowed to be continued and must be treated to have been put to
an end. The reason is apparent. The applications made by such
candidates as were not qualified but were in the process of
acquiring eligibility qualifications would be difficult to be
scrutinised and subjected to the process of approval or elimination
and would only result in creating confusion and uncertainty. Many
would be such applicants who would be called to face interview
but shall have to be returned blank if they failed to acquire
requisite eligibility qualifications by the time of interview. In our
opinion the authorities of the State should be tied down to the
principles governing the cut off date for testing the eligibility
qualifications on the principles deducible from decided cases of
this Court and stated herein above which have now to be treated as
the settled service jurisprudence."
13. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat and
others vs. Arvind kumar T. Tiwari and another, reported in AIR 2012 SC
3281 has held as under:-
"11. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification
cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his
appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules is, and would
therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be
cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to
serious illegibility and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot
approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not
have a right which can be enforced through court."
14. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs.
U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, reported in AIR
2008 SC 1817 has held as under:
"19. If the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a
post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same cannot be condoned. Such
an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the
statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 31-Oct-26
12:36:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33199
9 WP-43517-2026
be regularized, particularly, when the statute in no unmistakable
term says so. Only an irregularity can be.
24. A departmental proceeding against the appellant might have
been initiated after the change of management. We will also
assume that the said proceeding was initiated after the contempt
proceeding was initiated. Appellant, however, has filed a writ
application for issuance of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus.
He, therefore, must establish existence of a legal right in himself
and a corresponding legal duty in the State. If he did not possess
the requisite qualification to hold a post, he could not have any
legal right to continue. It was, therefore, immaterial as to why and
when the said proceeding had been initiated against him."
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Dipitimayee Parida vs. State of
Orissa And Others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 687 has held as under:-
"16. Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra
qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as
on the last date for filing of the application. This has been so held
in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan stating: (SCC p.
175, para 10)
“10. The contention that the required qualifications of the
candidates should be examined with reference to the date of
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. We have, therefore, no hesitation
in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 31-Oct-26
12:36:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33199
10 WP-43517-2026
as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the
requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on
the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent
illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are
liable to be quashed.”
16. Admittedly, the petitioner’s computer diploma examination was
conducted in June 2008 and the result was declared on 08.09.2008, whereas
the prescribed cut-off date for possessing the requisite qualification was
07.07.2008. Thus, the petitioner acquired the requisite qualification after the
cut-off date. Merely because the petitioner was selected for training,
completed the training and cleared the final examination, he would not
acquire an indefeasible right to appointment in the absence of the requisite
qualification as on the prescribed cut-off date. Accordingly, this Court does
not find any illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference.
17. Accordingly, the present petition sans merits and is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
AVI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 31-Oct-26
12:36:32 PM