IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT rd ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6772 of 2018 DEEPAK SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri G.K. Agarwal – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

“i) That, the respondents be commanded to take decision over representation contained in Annexure - P/1 within a specified time.

ii) That, the order dated 27.6.2012 and the order contained in Annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential keeping in view that the similarly situated persons have already been reinstated in services.

iii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted.”

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that applications were invited from the eligible persons for filling up of the post of Patwari by way of Patwari Recruitment Test, 2008. The said test was conducted by M.P. Professional Examination Board, Bhopal. Petitioner applied for the post of Patwari. Petitioner had appeared in the said competitive exam being a candidate and ultimately the result of the said examination was declared. Though petitioner was having position in merit list, the respondents did not permit petitioner to join the post of Patwari while the seat was available and rejected the candidature of petitioner by order dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure P-2).

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is having diploma from MATS University and petitioner possesses the requisite qualification but the case of petitioner has not been considered. Learned counsel submits that being aggrieved by the said order present petition has been filed for the relief(s)

mentioned above.

4. Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the petitioner has acquired the qualification of DCA on 2009 after the cut-off date i.e. 7th July 2008. He further submitted that as per advertisement issued in the year 2008, the last date for submission of form was 07.07.2008, relevant clauses of said advertisement regarding last date and qualification are quoted below:

4- Hkjk gqvk vkosnu i= tek djuk%

Hkjk gqvk vkosnu&i= 07-07-2008 rd e.My dk;kZy; esa Mkd }kjk ;k O;fäxr :i ls çkIr gks tkuk pkfg;sA fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds i'pkr~ çkIr vkosnu&i=ksa dks fujLr ekuk tk;sxkA

1-8 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%

gk;j lsdaMªh ;k gkbZLdwy ¼10$+2½ mÙkh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gS lkFk gh 'O' Level certification from DOEACC/IETE ;k UGC ls ekU;rk çkIr fo'ofo|ky; }kjk lapkfyr@iath—r@ekU;rk çkIr@lEc) laLFkk ls 1 o"khZ; dEI;wVj fMIyksek ¼DCA½ ;k dEI;wVj esa mPp f'k{kk çkIr gksuk pkfg;sA

5. It is further submitted that by order dated 8.03.2011, passed in W.P. No. 2871/2010 (Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar v. State of M.P.) the Division Bench of this Court has already decided that cut-off date i.e 7.7.2008 cannot be extended. He further relied upon the case of Sanjay Datt Dubey v. State of M.P. and Ors., 2022 (1) MPLJ 105 wherein it has also been held that appointment made is bad in law as the educational qualification prescribed in Patwari Examination, acquired after cut off date i.e 7.7.2008. He submitted that in the present case, there appears same situation. Hence, he supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the present petition.

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

7. It is settled position that if cut-off date is not prescribed then the last date of submission of form is the cut-off date as per judgment dated 8.3.2011 passed in W.P. No. 2871/2010, relevant para of which is quoted herein below:- "11.Accordingly, we hold and answer the question referred to us by holding that the circular dated 27.7.2009 and 26.08.2009 do not extend the cut-off date for acqu