Authorities directed to consider detailed representations for merit-based appointments within 60 days, without expressing any view on merits.

The petitioners challenged aspects of the Combined Recruitment Test–2023 for the posts of Van Rakshak, Kshetra Rakshak, Jail Prahri and other posts.

In W.P. Nos. 20051/2025 and 19946/2025, they sought production of the complete recruitment record, disclosure of their marks and merit position, and appointment against available posts.

They also challenged the notification dated 7 March 2024, alleging that it was based on an interim order in Youth for Quality v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 18105/2021, which had subsequently been considered by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 8274/2025.

In W.P. No. 44358/2025, the petitioner challenged the provision granting 27% reservation to the OBC category, contending that it should be restricted to 14%, and sought preparation of a fresh select list.

The petitioners submitted that their claims could still be considered against the 87% posts filled on merit, based on their examination marks, and stated that their representations had not been decided.

The State submitted that similar issues had arisen in Youth for Quality, against which SLP (Civil) No. 8274/2025 had been dismissed.

Whether the petitioners’ claims for selection or appointment against the 87% merit-based posts, on the basis of their marks and merit, were required to be considered by the respondents.

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to submit detailed representations distinguishing their cases from the decision in Youth for Quality v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Whether the Court should, at this stage, adjudicate the challenges to the recruitment notification, the reservation percentage, and the select lists.

The petitions were considered under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to issue appropriate writs and directions for enforcement of legal rights.

The Court applied the principle that a representation concerning a claim for selection or appointment must be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, particularly where the claimant asserts entitlement on the basis of merit and examination marks.

The Court also took note of the earlier proceedings in Youth for Quality v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 18105/2021, and the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No. 8274/2025 by the Supreme Court, but did not determine the substantive validity of the reservation or recruitment arrangement in these petitions.

The Court observed that the petitioners’ existing representations were insufficiently detailed to enable the authorities to properly examine whether their cases were distinguishable from Youth for Quality.

Nevertheless, the Court accepted that their claim to consideration against the 87% merit-based posts could not simply be left undecided and directed that the matter be placed before the competent authorities through detailed representations.

Since the Court was directing administrative consideration rather than adjudicating the petitioners’ substantive entitlement, it expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the challenges to the notification, reservation percentage, select lists, or appointments.

The petitioners were granted liberty to submit detailed representations distinguishing their cases from Youth for Quality.

The respondents were directed to consider those representations in accordance with law within 60 days of their submission.

The Court did not grant appointment, direct preparation of a fresh select list, invalidate the 27% OBC reservation, or decide the validity of the impugned notification; all such issues were left open for consideration by the competent authority, and the Court expressed no opinion on the merits.