IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT nd ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 7515 of 2014 RAVI SIKARWAR Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar – Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.1/UOI.

Shri Arvind Agrawal- Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3/FCI.

ORDER

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

“i) That, inaction of the respondents may kindly be held to be illegal, arbitrary and malafide, hence, directions deserves to be issued to the Respondents to issue offer of appointment expeditiously in pursuance of Annexure -P/1 (List of Posting) in favour of the petitioner keeping in view of the list in respect of order of posting (Annexure -P/1) issued by the respondents, in the interest of justice.

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

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner possesses the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) and also possesses Master's degree as M.Sc. (Forestry) and also having the qualification of diploma in computer application. The Food Corporation of India initiated the recruitment process by inviting applications over the posts by combined recruitment for Assistant Grade-III in General Depot, Technical and Account cadres in the FCI-2013. Pursuant to the said advertisement petitioner applied for the post by giving preference as AG-III (General), AG-III (Depot), AG-III (Technical) and AG-III (Accounts) and taking into consideration his candidature the Staff Selection Commission allotted roll number. Learned counsel submits that as per the Schedule of Examination the petitioner participated in the examination. Thereafter, name of petitioner was mentioned in the merit list issued by the Staff Selection Commission. Then, respondents issued posting order of 180 candidates and they did not issue appointment order in favour of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that being aggrieved by the arbitrary and discriminatory act of respondents, petitioner has filed instant petition. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner is having qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) which is the same just like B.Sc. (Agriculture). For that purpose, he has relied upon Annexure P-9 filed along with rejoinder dated 06.11.2013 and submits that as per information received under RTI Act Forestry subject comes under the category of Agriculture and further placed reliance upon order dated 01.04.2015 issued by Indian Council of Agriculture Research and submits that as per the definition of Agriculture it includes “Forestry”. It is also submitted that when a specific query has been put by the petitioner under RTI to the effect that whether B.Sc. (Forestry) comes under the Agriculture & Allied Sciences, then the answer has been given in remark column as “It is graduate in B.Sc. (Forestry) under Agriculture Science”. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that candidates who have completed their B.Sc. in Horticulture have been appointed and petitioner who has completed B.Sc. in Forestry has been discriminated by the respondents without any legal basis.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submit that as per advertisement petitioner does not possess minimum qualification as prescribed in the advertisement viz. B.Sc. in Agri. or B.Sc. with Botany/Zoology/Bio- Technology/Bio-Chemistry/Microbiology/Food Science or B.Tech./BE in Food Science/Food Science & Technology/Agricultural Engineering/Bio-Technology and petitioner is having qualification of B.Sc. in Forestry which has not been mentioned in the advertisement. It is also submitted that if the wrong benefit has been extended to a candidate who has completed B.Sc. (Horticulture) then petitioner canno