ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Bharti Sohani under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 3.2.2023, passed by the Joint Director, Lok Shiksha Vibhag, Indore (M.P.) whereby the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Middle School Teacher (Maths) has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not having ‘Maths’ as the main subject in her graduation.

2. The petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner is a graduate, having done her B.Sc. in computer science with physics and maths as subjects, and in-fact the petitioner, throughout her graduation has studied maths as a subject with 12 papers of mathematics, apart from physics.

3. Shri Sunil Jain, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that only because the petitioner had completed her B.Sc. along with maths as subject, she was allowed to do her M.Sc. in mathematics and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no exposure in the subject maths. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner fulfils all the requisite criteria and merely because she has not done her graduation in mathematics, the respondents were not justified in rejecting her candidature. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the additional reply filed by the State dated 28.8.2018, wherein the procedure for appointment for the post of Primary, Middle and High School Teachers has been provided, and so far as the Teachers applying for the Middle Schools are concerned, it is stated that for the purposes of maths, they must have completed the graduation along with maths or physics or engineering as subjects. Thus, it is submitted that since the petitioner has already completed her graduation along with maths and physics as subjects, in such circumstances, it was necessary for the petitioner to have degree in graduation exclusively in mathematics only.

4. Counsel has submitted that in the aforesaid circular dated 28.8.2018, the State has clearly given a different treatment to the subject mathematics than the other subjects, because it is also provided in the circular that a person is required to have the qualification as per the rules. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner may be declared as a successful candidate.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the respondents have already dealt with the aforesaid conditions in the advertisement and in the subsequent circular, and it has been held on as many as three occasions, viz., in the case of Mr. Vipin Nath Yogi, Ms. Khushboo Jilani and Ms. Charulata Deshmukh. So far as Vipin Nath is concerned, he had applied for the post of Teacher in mathematics, and mathematics was the only subject along with computer science subject, whereas, in the case of Ms. Khushboo Jilani, she was bachelor in engineering and mathematics was also one of her subjects, and so far as Ms. Charulata Deshmukh is concerned, she applied for the post of Middle School Teacher for English Teacher, but she was not even graduate in English, as she was a commerce graduate having English in the first two years only, and despite she has been selected. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be discriminated by the respondents by interpreting the aforesaid advertisement and the subsequent order in a different manner.

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. It is submitted that the advertisement clearly provides that the candidate is required to have graduate degree, para 7 of which provides that a candidate must be graduate in the related subject, and has also referred to the rules which provide that the education qualification must be the bachelor degree in the relevant subject and thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. So far as the reliance placed in respect of the other candidates is concerned, it is submitted that