IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 17883 of 2017 POONAM AADIWASI (SEHARIA)

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Divakar Vyas - learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Jain - learned Government Advocate for

respondent/State.

Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadauria - learned counsel for respondent No.4.

ORDER the action of the respondent in issuing the select list / merit list of the candidates with respect to the special recruitment of ST (PGYT 2017) which is called as Vanrakshak Recruitment Examination, 2017. It is further submitted that the name of petitioner does not find place in the select list and her name finds place at serial No.2 in the waiting list. It is further submitted that at the time of issuance of select list, the respondents/authorities did not follow the law pertaining to women reservation prevalent in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is further submitted that there has to be a provision in each direct recruitment in favour of the female candidates to the extent of 30% horizontal and compartment-wise, however, in the present case, those statutory rules were not followed by respondents. No female candidate including petitioner has been selected which is contrary to the Rules 1997.

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been

filed seeking the following relief(s):

7.1 That, the impugned select list whereby the petitioner was excluded being appointed on the post of Vanrakshak Annexure P-

4 may kindly be quashed.

7.2 That, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Vanrakshak

pursuant to her participation in PTG in District Sheopur (M.P.).

7.3 That, any other relief(s) to which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the

petitioner in the interest of justice.

7.4 That, the cost of this petition be also awarded to the

petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is challenging

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that in the advertisement it is specifically mentioned that as per the Gazette Notification dated 17.11.2015 issued by the GAD, relaxation to women was already provided.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The relevant part of the advertisement is quoted below for ready reference and convenience:

(3) म(cid:2)य(cid:4)देश शासन सामा(cid:11)य (cid:4)शासन (cid:12)वभाग क(cid:17) अिधसूचना (cid:23).सी-3- 8-2015-एक-3 (cid:27)दनांक 17.11.15 (cid:29)ारा म(cid:27)हलाओं क(cid:17) भत(cid:35) म(cid:36) छू ट (cid:4)दान क(cid:17) गई है, अत: म(cid:27)हलाओं हेत ु पथृ क से आर(cid:46)(cid:47)त नह(cid:48)ं रखे गये ह(cid:50)।

6. In Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others 1986 (Supp) SCC 285, Supreme Court held as under :-

“24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination.”

7. In Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission Uttarakhand and others (2011) 1 SCC 150 Supreme Court held as under :-

“24. ….All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection process and were also fully aware that they must possess the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellant also appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer applicatio