IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 15 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 10390 of 2016 PANKAJ SINGH BAGHEL AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vikas Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner Nos.1 & 9.

None for other petitioners.

Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 12050 of 2016 BALRAM YADAV AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri D.K. Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Kumar Mishra -

Advocate for the petitioner No.2.

None for the other petitioners.

Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.

WRIT PETITION No. 203 of 2017 ARVIND SINGH THAKUR AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

None for the petitioners.

Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

WRIT PETITION No. 1921 of 2017 UMA SHANKAR VISHWAKARMA Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Nitya Nand Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

WRIT PETITION No. 4211 of 2017 DR. GAURAV KUMAR SAXENA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Nitya Nand Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

WRIT PETITION No. 5536 of 2017 MANISH KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Nitya Nand Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

ORDER This order shall govern disposal of aforesaid writ petitions.

2. In this batch of petitions, challenge is made to corrigendum dated

20.11.2015 by which according to the petitioners, while changing the rules of game during the mid process, scaling method to evaluate the merit was introduced by the respondent.

3. According to the facts which are identical in all the cases, an advertisement dated 30.12.2014 was issued by M.P. Public Service Commission for conducting the examination and selection for the post of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger. The advertisement was followed by corrigendum dated 20.11.2015 i.e. almost after 11 months and by corrigendum it was informed that scaling method would be taken recourse to for preparation of the list for interview. The said corrigendum was issued after issuance of initial advertisement. The initial advertisement does not contain any methodology pertaining to scaling for preparation of the list, on the contrary, as per the advertisement, the list was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the examination in order of merit. The petitioners appeared in the examination. However, they were not selected despite the fact that they had scored higher marks than the selected candidates and this anomaly crept up on account of following scaling method which was introduced by way of corrigendum during the mid of the selection process. According to the petitioners, the present petitioners despite having scored more marks than the candidates so selected have been deprived of the appointment. The petitioners have submitted details of marks in the memorandum of petition. One such petition is WP No.10390 of 2016 and in paragraph 5.6 of the same, there is a table in which the marks scored by the selected candidates have been mentioned and the marks scored by the petitioners have been mentioned and as per paragraph 5.6, the marks obtained by the present petitioners were more than selected candidates. However, according to the petitioners, on account of method of scaling, the petitioners have been deprived of the selection against the post for which the advertisement was issued. Thus, questioning the corrigendum and the entire process of scaling method, this petition is filed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA

4. Learned senior counsel Shri Dixit submits that it is a