2026 Supreme(MP) 31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
JAI KUMAR PILLAI, J.
Smt. Aaradhna Buj – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 39107 of 2024
Decided On : 21-01-2026

Headnote:

(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- service matter -- recruitment -- terms of advertisement are sacrosanct -- cannot be diluted by judicial interpretation. [Para 12]

(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- service matter -- recruitment -- relaxation of cut-off date on personal grounds -- in absence of statutory provision, no equity can be imported by judicial fiat -- recruitment to public posts is governed by principles of certainty, transparency and equal opportunity -- granting relaxation to one candidate on personal grounds would necessarily result in discrimination against other candidates who complied with schedule despite their own difficulties. [Para 17]

(3) Civil Services -- recruitment -- effect of interim order of Court -- petitioner was permitted to participate in interview only on account of interim order passed by Court -- participation in selection process under protection of interim order does not confer any vested or equitable right upon candidate -- no relief can be granted merely because she was allowed to appear in interview. [Para 19]

(4) Civil Services -- recruitment -- relaxation of cut-off date -- petitioner seeks direction to respondents to accept her documents beyond prescribed cut-off date and to consider her candidature for appointment -- petitioner was under clear, continuous and unequivocal obligation to remain vigilant and to regularly monitor official website of Public Service Commission for all updates relating to recruitment process -- advertisement as well as Appendix-1 appended to result expressly stipulated a mandatory time-frame for submission of documents and clearly provided consequences of noncompliance -- despite adequate notice and sufficient opportunity, including extensions granted by Commission, petitioner failed to submit documents within prescribed period -- plea of medical incapacity, in absence of any enabling provision, cannot be accepted as legally sustainable ground to override mandatory conditions governing public recruitment -- Commission acted strictly in conformity with terms of advertisement and instructions issued thereunder -- selection process concluded -- any interference at this stage would amount to rewriting or diluting conditions of advertisement, which is impermissible in law -- public employment must be regulated by certainty, uniformity and adherence to prescribed timelines so as to ensure equal opportunity to all eligible candidates -- granting individual relaxation on equitable or sympathetic considerations would not only violate settled principles of service jurisprudence, but would also set an unhealthy precedent, eroding sanctity of recruitment process -- petition dismissed. (2018) 6 SCC 446, (2011) 12 SCC 85 = (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 635 = 2011 SCC Online SC 1325 and (1997) 6 SCC 574 = 1997 SCC (L&S) 1744 followed. 2015 SCC Online All. 9063 = AIR 2015 All. 161 = (2016) 118 ALR 576 = ILR (2015) 2 All. 1010 (FB) relied on. 2024 SCC Online SC 2 = 2024 (1) MPLJ 328 distinguished. (2008) 9 SCC 403, Secretary, UPSC AIR 2011 SC 3101, (2009) 9 SCC 135 and Writ Petition No. 1499 of 2011 order dated 15.2.2011 (Ind.) referred to. [Paras 21 to 24]

(5) Civil Services -- public employment must be regulated by certainty, uniformity and adherence to prescribed timelines so as to ensure equal opportunity to all eligible candidates -- granting individual relaxation on equitable or sympathetic considerations would not only violate settled principles of service jurisprudence, but would also set an unhealthy precedent, eroding sanctity of recruitment process. [Para 24]

¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & lsok dk ekeyk & HkrhZ & foKkiu ds fuca/ku vya?kuh; gksrs gSa & U;kf;d fuoZpu ls ruq ugha fd, tk ldrsA ¼iSjk 12½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & lsok dk ekeyk & HkrhZ & O;fäxr vk/kkjksa ij dV&v‚Q fnukad dk f'kfFkyhdj.k & dkuwuh mica/k ds vHkko esa] U;kf;d vkns'k ls lkE;k vk;kfrr ugha dh tk ldrh & yksd inksa ij HkrhZ fuf'prrk] ikjnf'kZrk vkSj leku volj ds fl)karksa ls fofu;fer gksrh gS & ,d vH;FkhZ dks O;fäxr vk/kkjksa ij f'kfFkyhdj.k çnku djus ls mu vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lkFk vko';dr% foHksn ifj.kr gksxk ftUgksaus Lo;a dh dfBukb;ksa ds ckotwn le; &lhek dk ikyu fd;kA ¼iSjk 17½
¼3½ flfoy lsok & HkrhZ & U;k;ky; ds varfje vkns'k dk çHkko & ;kfpuh dks dsoy U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr varfje vkns'k ds dkj.k lk{kkRdkj esa Hkkx ysus fn;k x;k & varfje vkns'k ds laj{k.k esa p;u çfØ;k esa Hkkx ysus ls vH;FkhZ dks dksbZ fufgr ;k lkE;kiw.kZ vf/kdkj çnÙk ugha gksrk & ek= blfy, fd mls lk{kkRdkj esa milatkr gksus fn;k x;k] dksbZ vuqrks"k çnku ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 19½
¼4½ flfoy lsok & HkrhZ & dV&v‚Q fnukad dk f'kfFkyhdj.k & ;kfpuh us çR;FkhZx.k dks fofgr dV&v‚Q fnukad ds i'pkr~ mlds nLrkost Lohdkj djus rFkk fu;qfä ds fy, mldh vH;fFkZrk ij fopkj djus dk funs'k fn, tkus dh bZIlk dh & ;kfpuh lrdZ jgus rFkk HkrhZ çfØ;k ds laca/k esa leLr v|ru tkudkjh ds fy, yksd lsok vk;ksx dh osclkbV dks fu;fer :i ls ns[kus dh Li"V] lrr~ vkSj vlafnX/k ck/;rk ds v/khu Fkh & foKkiu ds lkFk gh ifj.kke ls mikc) ifjf'k"V&1 esa nLrkost is'k djus ds fy, vkKkid le;&lhek vfHkO;är% fu;r dh xbZ Fkh rFkk vuuqikyu ds ifj.kke Li"Vr% fn, x, Fks & ;Fkksfpr lwpuk vkSj i;kZIr volj ds ckotwn] ftlesa vk;ksx }kjk nh xbZ le;o`f);k¡ lfEefyr gSa] ;kfpuh fofgr vof/k ds Hkhrj nLrkost is'k djus esa vlQy jgh & fdlh lkeF;Zdkjh mica/k ds vHkko esa] LokLF; laca/kh v{kerk dk vfHkokd~ yksd HkrhZ dks fofu;fer djus okyh vkKkid 'krksZ dk v/;kjkg.k djus ds fy, fof/kr% leFkZuh; vk/kkj ds :i esa Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vk;ksx us vfrfu;efu"Br% foKkiu ds fuca/kuksa rFkk rn/khu tkjh vuqns'kksa ds vuq:i dk;Z fd;k & p;u çfØ;k iw.kZ & bl çØe ij fdlh Hkh çdkj dk gLr{ksi foKkiu dh 'krsZ iqufyZf[kr djus ;k mUgsa ruq djus dh dksfV esa vk,xk] tks fof/k esa vuuqKs; gS & yksd fu;kstu fuf'prrk] ,d:irk rFkk fofgr le;lhekvksa ds ikyu ls fofu;fer gksuk vko';d gS rkfd lHkh ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, leku volj lqfuf'pr gks & lkE;kiw.kZ vFkok lgkuqHkwfriw.kZ vk/kkjksa ij O;fäxr f'kfFkyhdj.k çnku djus ls lsok laca/kh fof/k 'kkL= ds fLFkj fl)karksa dk vfrØe.k gh ugha gksxk] vfirq HkrhZ çfØ;k dh 'kqfprk u"V djrs gq, ,d gkfudkjd iwoZfu.kZ; Hkh LFkkfir gksxk & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼2018½ 6 ,llhlh 446] ¼2011½ 12 ,llhlh 85 % ¼2011½ 2 ,llhlh ¼,y ,aM ,l½ 635 % 2011 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1325 rFkk ¼1997½ 6 ,llhlh 574 % 1997 ,llhlh ¼,y ,aM ,l½ 1744 vuqlfjrA 2015 ,llhlh v‚uykbu byk- 9063 % ,vkbvkj 2015 byk- 161 % ¼2016½ 118 ,,yvkj 576 % vkb,yvkj ¼2015½ 2 byk- 1010 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA 2024 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 2 % 2024 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 328 çHksfnrA ¼2008½ 9 ,llhlh 403] ,vkbvkj 2011 ,llh 3101] ¼2009½ 9 ,llhlh 135 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 1499 lu~ 2011 vkns'k fnukad 15-2-2011 ¼bankSj½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21 ls 24½
¼5½ flfoy lsok & yksd fu;kstu fuf'prrk] ,d:irk rFkk fofgr le; lhekvksa ds ikyu ls fofu;fer gksuk vko';d gS rkfd lHkh ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, leku volj lqfuf'pr gks & lkE;kiw.kZ vFkok lgkuqHkwfriw.kZ vk/kkjksa ij O;fäxr f'kfFkyhdj.k çnku djus ls lsok laca/kh fof/k 'kkL= ds fLFkj fl)karksa dk vfrØe.k gh ugha gksxk] vfirq HkrhZ çfØ;k dh 'kqfprk u"V djrs gq, ,d gkfudkjd iwoZfu.kZ; Hkh LFkkfir gksxkA ¼iSjk 24½

ORDER :

JAI KUMAR PILLAI, J.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents, particularly Respondent No.2 (Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC), to accept her documents beyond the prescribed cut-off date and to consider her candidature for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) pursuant to Advertisement No. 17/2022 dated 30/12/2022.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe category possessing the requisite educational qualifications including clearing of State Eligibility Test (SET-2022), rendering her eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Botany).

3. It is further contended by the petitioner that respondent No.2 issued an Advertisement No.17/2022 dated 30/12/2022 inviting applications for appointment to 126 posts of Assistant Professor (Botany). The petitioner submitted her online application on 12/04/2024 and appeared in the written examination conducted on 09/06/2024. The result was declared on 04/10/2024, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No.353 in the provisional merit list. Along with the result specific instructions were issued requiring provisionally selected candidates to submit their documents for verification on or before 25/10/2024, failing which their candidature would stand cancelled. The said period was extended twice, first with late fees of Rs.3,000/- and thereafter with late fees of Rs.25,000/- extending the final cut-off till 11/11/2024.

4. Further, the petitioner did not submit her documents either within the original period or within the extended periods. Subsequently, she submitted a representation dated 25/11/2024 citing her ill health as the reason for non-submission of documents which was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition was filed. By an interim order dated 16/12/2024, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the interview subject to final outcome of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is fully qualified and has successfully cleared the written examination, and therefore deserves consideration for appointment. It is argued that the petitioner was suffering from Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD), which prevented her from checking the result and submitting documents within time. Hence, the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional.

6. It is further submitted that since the Commission itself extended the last date multiple times on payment of late fees, the cut-off date cannot be treated as rigid or mandatory. Reliance has been placed on Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2 , 2024 (1) MPLJ 328, to contend that technicalities should not defeat substantive rights of a meritorious candidate. It is also contended that since the petitioner was permitted to appear in the interview by interim order and her result has been kept in sealed cover, denial of appointment would cause grave injustice.

7. Per contra, respondent No.2 (PSC) has contended that it is merely a recruiting agency and that the entire selection process is governed strictly by the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the instructions issued thereunder. It is submitted that the result dated 04/10/2024 clearly stipulated that all requisite documents were to be submitted on or before 25/10/2024, failing which the candidature of the concerned candidate was liable to be cancelled. Despite such an unequivocal stipulation, the petitioner failed to submit the documents within the prescribed time, even though two extensions were granted on payment of substantial late fees.

8. It has further been submitted that the petitioner remained inactive for a considerable period of about 37 days, i.e. from 04/10/2024 to 11/11/2024, and did not take any steps to comply with the requirements within the stipulated or extended time. Even thereafter, the petitioner merely

Click Here to Read the rest of this document