MP HC Gives State 3 Months To Decide Tribal Welfare-Allotted Teachers’ Plea For School Education Department Posting

The State conducted a common recruitment process for teacher vacancies in the School Education and Tribal Welfare Departments.

The petitioners, who had qualified with normalised scores of 109.49 and 109.30, respectively, were appointed to the Tribal Welfare Department on 1 April 2023, although they claimed to have opted only for schools under the School Education Department.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in Sakshi Tamrakar & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors., W.A. No. 1121/2025, dated 11 August 2026, the petitioners submitted a representation seeking consideration for allocation to the School Education Department; they also sent reminders, but the representation remained undecided.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners had not challenged their original allocation when it was made.

Whether the petitioners’ claim for consideration for allocation to the School Education Department, in light of Sakshi Tamrakar, should be determined by the Court or first decided by the respondents.

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the petitioners’ pending representation by a reasoned order.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Sakshi Tamrakar & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors., W.A. No. 1121/2025, dated 11 August 2026, which it described as having settled the law relevant to the petitioners’ claim for consideration for appointment in the School Education Department.

The Court did not set out the specific statutory provisions or elaborate the precedent’s substantive rule; it directed the respondents to consider that decision when deciding the representation.

The petitioners’ representation was pending, and the Court considered the issue governed by the Division Bench’s decision in Sakshi Tamrakar.

Rather than determine the petitioners’ entitlement to reallocation or address the State’s objection based on delay, the Court left the merits to the respondents, requiring them to assess the representation in light of that precedent and provide a reasoned decision.

Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were directed to decide the petitioners’ representation by a reasoned and speaking order, considering Sakshi Tamrakar, within three months from communication of the order.