IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI WRIT PETITION No. 21262 of 2023 MAYANK BHARADWAJ AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.

Smt. Monika Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 19830 of 2023 CHANCHAL MODI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Anil Kumar Mishra & Shri Akram Khan - Advocates for the petitioner.

Smt. Monika Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on: 28-01-2026 Pronounced on: 02-02-2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

The petitioners in Writ Petition No.21262 of 2023 have prayed for the following reliefs:

"i. Respondents be directed to extend the benefit of increment for the period of 2012-2016 ii. Respondents be further directed to the extend the benefit of first time scale pay scale to petitioner w.e.f.

2019.

iii. Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court may deems fit may kindly be given."

[2]. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.19830 of 2023 have prayed for the following reliefs:

"(I) That, Respondent may kindly be directed to grant increment as per the gradation list, from the appointment dated 30.06.2011 and time pay scale to the petitioner from February 2020 and accordingly other benefits be also be paid in the interest of justice. (II) That, other economic benefits also be paid to the petitioner from the date of final selection list as other incumbent been allotted.

(III) That, Areas may kindly be directed to be calculated and same be paid along with the interest."

[3]. Thus, the relief claimed in both the writ petitions are identical and are based on similar facts. The petitions are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from W.P. No.21262 of 2023.

[4]. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission (in short 'Commission') on 05.07.2010 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer (ADPO), the petitioners participated in the selection process alongwith other candidates. The select list was published by the Commission on 30.06.2011. The petitioners were either not selected or were placed in the waiting list. Being aggrieved, they filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the select list prepared by the Commission. The challenge was made on the ground that in respect of certain questions, the petitioners had opted correct answers, but the model answers finalized by the Commission were incorrect, as a result of which, they were not awarded appropriate marks.

[5]. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge, against which writ appeals were preferred. One such writ appeal was W.A. No.233 of 2012. The Division Bench, vide order dated 27.03.2014, allowed the writ appeals. The observations/directions made by the Division Bench in paragraphs 56 & 59 are reproduced hereunder;

"56. The persons have already been appointed and those persons have not been made party in the petition before the writ court or in the writ appeal before this court. Hence, the persons, who have been selected, their selection could not be set aside, however, if the posts are still vacant and the appellants would receive higher marks in comparasion to the cut of marks, then the State is at liberty to a