IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT WRIT PETITION No. 3417 of 2017 RAM LAKHAN GUPTA Versus STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri S.K. Sharma– Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Ravindra Dixit- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Reserved on : 30.01.2026 Pronounced on : 20.02.2026 ___________________________________________________________________

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) That, the impugned order dated 24.01.2017 be declared illegal and be quashed.

(ii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to prepared the list of selection for group -4 vacancies only from the candidate who were eligible on the last date of application

21.11.2016 as per the existing rules.

(iii) That, respondents be also directed to prepare the merit list as per the criteria set by the Apex Court wherein the reserve candidate cannot be shifted to the vacancy of general category on basis of acquiring the higher marks.

(iv) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by the impugned order dated 24.01.2017, respondent No.2 has illegally regularized the candidature of certain candidates who were not eligible as on the last date for submission of applications under the prevailing rules. It is contended that, despite being ineligible, some candidates misrepresented their eligibility and submitted applications for selection to the Group-4 vacancies. In order to accommodate such candidates, the impugned order was issued during the pendency of the selection process by altering the eligibility criteria, thereby causing serious prejudice to a large number of candidates who did not apply in view of the original prescribed criteria. An action which could not have been undertaken directly has thus been carried out indirectly and is, therefore, without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that, by way of the impugned order, the minimum typing speed requirement was reduced from 30 words per minute to 20 words per minute after the expiry of the last date for submission of applications. As a result, several candidates who would have been eligible under the revised criteria did not apply pursuant to the original notification. Hence, the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and discriminatory in nature.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that, in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, His Excellency the Governor of Madhya Pradesh has framed the Madhya Pradesh Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013. As per Rule 10(1)(C) of the said Rules, possession of a valid CPCT Score Card has been made mandatory. It is contended that these statutory rules were not considered by the Indore Bench while deciding W.P. Nos. 7880/2016, 7883/2016, and 6110/2017, and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. He also reliance upon the judgment dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Indore Bench in W.P. No. 6100/2017, wherein a similar prayer for consideration without a CPCT certificate was rejected. It is further submitted that the General Administration Department, vide notification dated 24.01.2017, made possession of a CPCT Score Card mandatory, as reflected in para 3(vi) of the circular. It is contended that the complete advertisement issued by the Professional Examination Board clearly incorporated the said requirement, and therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the impugned action. Consequently, the respondents were justified in not recommending the petitioner’s name for want of the requisite CPCT qualification. It is further submitted that in W.P. No. 6627/2017 (Alok Singh vs. State of M.P.), involving similar facts, this Court has dismissed the petition.

4. It is further submitted on behalf of respondent that the Full Bench of this Court