A Mate-training certificate cannot substitute for the required one-year MNREGA work experience.

The appellant and Respondent No. 1 applied for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Village Panchayat Janwa, District Balaghat. The appellant initially secured 89.11 marks, while Respondent No. 1 secured 94.44 marks and was placed first in the merit list under the Government Circular dated 10 November 2009.

The appellant claimed 15 additional marks for one year’s experience under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA), relying on documents relating to work performed in other Gram Panchayats. The Scrutiny Committee accepted his objection and awarded him the additional marks, raising his score to 104.11, following which he was appointed on 1 February 2011.

Respondent No. 1 challenged the appointment before the District Collector, who set it aside on the ground that the appellant had not worked in MNREGA construction work at Village Panchayat Janwa and was therefore not entitled to the 15 experience marks.

The Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, subsequently quashed the Collector’s order and restored the appellant’s appointment on 8 November 2011.

Respondent No. 1 challenged that decision in Writ Petition No. 19630 of 2011. The Writ Court allowed the petition on 18 August 2026, holding that the Additional Commissioner had failed to record a finding that the appellant possessed the requisite one year’s experience. The appellant filed the present intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

Whether the appellant’s documents established the requisite one year’s experience of working under MNREGA or as a MATE so as to entitle him to 15 additional marks in the selection for Gram Rojgar Sahayak?

Whether the Writ Court was justified in setting aside the Additional Commissioner’s order and disturbing the appellant’s appointment?

The Court applied the eligibility requirements prescribed for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, particularly Clause 2(b)(2), which required experience of at least one year on a contractual post under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme or as a MATE.

The Court also considered the Government Circular dated 10 November 2009 governing the selection and award of marks.

The governing principle was that experience marks could be awarded only where the candidate proved the specifically prescribed experience; a certificate showing MATE training or work in a self-help group did not, by itself, establish one year’s actual service under MNREGA or as a MATE.

The Court examined the certificate produced by the appellant and found that it had been issued by the Project Officer in relation to work performed in the self-help group Nari Utthan Sewa Mahila Mandal, Baihar, and did not establish that the appellant had worked under the MNREGA scheme.

The Court further distinguished between a certificate showing that the appellant had passed MATE training and proof of actual one year’s working experience as a MATE; the former could not satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirement.

Since the appellant was not entitled to the additional 15 marks, his original score remained 89.11, whereas Respondent No. 1 had 94.44 marks and was correctly placed first in the merit list.

Accordingly, the Writ Court was correct in setting aside the Additional Commissioner’s order, whose decision had failed to establish the appellant’s eligibility for the experience marks.

It answered the second issue in favour of Respondent No. 1, holding that the Writ Court had rightly allowed the writ petition and set aside the Additional Commissioner’s order.

The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the appellant’s appointment was not upheld or confirmed.