Officiating in a higher post does not confer eligibility reserved for substantive holders of that post.

The petitioners’ substantive post was Madhyamik Shikshak.

Under an amendment to the Madhya Pradesh State and Subordinate Education Services (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2016, they were permitted to officiate as Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak, without acquiring the seniority or pay of that higher post.

They applied for selection to the posts of Block Resource Centre Coordinator (BRCC) and Assistant Project Coordinator (APC).

The petitioners said their applications were treated as ineligible because they held the higher post only in an officiating capacity.

They sought permission to participate in the selection process, including the examination scheduled for 21 October 2026, alleging arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that eligibility depended on the petitioners’ substantive posts.

1. Whether officiating as Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak made the petitioners eligible for selection to the BRCC and APC posts, notwithstanding their substantive posts as Madhyamik Shikshak.

2. Whether the petitioners could claim eligibility by relying on the participation or relief granted to other candidates in similar circumstances.

Rule 6(d) of the Madhya Pradesh State and Subordinate Education Services (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2016 permits an eligible government servant to officiate in a higher rank when an immediate arrangement is required, but does not confer the higher post’s seniority or pay; officiating service is distinct from substantive promotion.

Eligibility under the advertisement was to be assessed against its prescribed qualification—School Lecturer or an equivalent qualification—and the petitioners’ substantive posts.

Article 14 embodies positive equality and does not require the State or a court to repeat an unlawful or mistaken grant of benefit; the Court relied on Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437; Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Gulshan Lal, (2009) 12 SCC 231; Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705; and Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81.

The Court read Rule 6(d) as authorising only an officiating arrangement, not a substantive promotion.

Since the petitioners’ substantive posts remained Madhyamik Shikshak, their temporary charge of Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak duties did not establish equivalence with the qualification prescribed by the advertisement.

Nor could interim relief or participation allegedly afforded to other candidates establish the petitioners’ entitlement; Article 14 does not permit the perpetuation of an illegality through negative equality.

Finding no ground for interference, it dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.