IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 24 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 3183 of 2024 SMT. RUPA SINGH BAGHEL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shreyash Pandit - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the State.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The appellant has filed the present writ appeal challenging mainly direction No.11(ii) of the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.23621/2019, whereby her degree of PGDCA has been directed to be discarded if she is found appearing as a regular student in Grade 10th examination.

2. The Appellant/respondent No.5 was selected for the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. Initially, she was placed at Serial No.5, and the writ petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 in the selection list. The appellant/respondent No.5 filed a writ petition, has been disposed off by following directions:

(i) The respondent No.3 shall take a fresh look into the matter after getting the fact verified from the institution issuing the certificate of Pury Madhima, whether it is obtained by regular mode or by open or by private mode.

(ii) If the said education has been taken by the Regular Board, then, the computer qualification of the petitioner would not be accepted.

(iii) The respondent No.5 shall be at liberty to place any other documents before the Collector to show as to how indeed she was the resident of village Bachwai.

(iv) The respondent No.5 states that village Bachwai was her matrimonial village after marriage. If the respondent No.5 places permanent resident certificate or any other document to show permanent residence of her husband in the said village, then the said can also be accepted.

(v) Let the requisite exercise be completed within a period of three months. The respondent No.5 shall not be disturbed and shall be allowed to continue till the fresh exercise be completed.

3. The aforesaid order has been complied with by the Collector, Satna and District Magistrate, Satna vide order dated 30.06.2025. The Collector has found that the present appellant appeared as a regular student in the Purv Madhima Examination of Grade 10th conducted by Maharishi Patanjali Sanskrit Sansthan, Madhya Pradesh in the year 2011. The learned Collector has found both the mark sheets valid, but as per the Direction No.11(ii), the mark sheet of the PGDCA is now liable to be discarded.

4. The appellant was waiting for the decision of the Collector. When the decision has gone against her, she filed this writ appeal on 24.12.2024 with an application for condonation of the delay of 29 days. Once the order passed by the writ court has been complied with, and that has gone against the appellant, hence now, she cannot challenge the order.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if both the mark sheets have been found valid, then instead of the PGDCA marksheet, the marksheet of Purv Madhima (10) should be discarded because the Grade 10th marksheet is not an essential qualification for the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. Now, such a prayer cannot be accepted as the appellant took a calculated risk to participate in the proceedings before the Collector without challenging the order passed by the writ Court. Even otherwise, the appellant is not entitled to continue on the post because she appeared as a regular student in both courses, which is not legally permissible. Hence, apart from that, in the Purv Madhima marksheet, the mother's name of the appellant has been found in correct. Hence, she tried to manipulate things to get the appointment.

6. Initially, the selection committee did not award the mark for the PGDCA as she was not found a resident of the said local village, when it has been found true that appellant tried to appear in two examinations as a regular student, which is not permissible as well as not possible, therefore, such a candidate is not fit for appointment to the po