IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH ON THE 19^th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 2096 of 2025 SUBHAM TIWARI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Amit Lahoti- learned Counsel for appellant.

Shri Ankur Mody- learned Additional Advocate General for respondents-

State.

Respondent No.3- District Education Officer is present in person.

ORDER Per: Justice Hirdesh This intra-court appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh (Uchcha Nyayalaya Ki Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 arises out of the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16645 of 2021, whereby the appellant's challenge against the denial of his appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III was dismissed.

2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant, having qualified the recruitment process of 2011, was selected under the unreserved open category. During the verification process on 12.03.2013, his credentials were cleared, and he was subsequently allotted a posting at Primary School, Rampura, District Ashok Nagar. However, the final appointment order was withheld on the ground that his Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) was obtained from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad (UP), which the respondents claimed was not recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) or NCTE.

3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that similarly situated persons, who were already in service with the same qualification, were granted relief by this Court in W.P. No. 1460/2015. In that matter, the Court observed that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow, while not on the NCTE list, was recognized by the UGC. Consequently, those petitioners were permitted to continue in service subject to obtaining a recognized D.Ed. qualification within three years. Following the spirit of the earlier judicial directions and the specific order passed in the appellant's previous petition (W.P. No. 8014/2016), the appellant proactively obtained a fresh D.Ed. qualification from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, in the year 2017. This qualification is undisputedly recognized by all relevant statutory bodies.Despite this, the respondents rejected the appellant's claim on 11.10.2019, creating an artificial distinction that the appellant was only a "selected candidate" and not an "already working employee." It is further contended that one Shruti Singh Sisodiya, who, like the appellant, was not working at the time of selection and held a D.Ed. from the same Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad (UP), was granted an appointment. The appellant has produced documents supporting this contention of factual parity. The respondents, in their return, did not effectively dispute this parity, merely stating that correspondence between the District Education Officer and the Directorate of Public Instruction was pending. Refusing to appoint the appellant is a violation of the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, especially since the appellant had already fixed the initial problem by obtaining a recognized degree in 2017.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State opposed the contentions of the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition as the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification from a recognized institute at the initial time of selection.

5. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order along with documents available on record, this Court finds that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The distinction drawn by the respondents between the appellant and other appointed candidates, specifically Shruti Singh Sisodiya, is found to be illusory and discriminatory. Since the appellant now possesses the requisite qualification from a recognized M.P. Board and stands on an equal