IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 5070 of 2026 DHARMENDRA KUMAR TIWARI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Devesh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kaushlendra Singh Tomar - GA for the State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

(i) That, respondent no.1 to 4 may kindly be directed to revise the result/merit list by applying the rules of reservation in proper manner.

(ii) That, the respondent no. 1 to 4 may kindly be directed to award the post of Sub Inspector (District Police) to the petitioner with all consequential benefit.

(iii) That, any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs.

2. Learned Government Advocate, on advance notice, at the outset raised an objection regarding delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, the arguments of the petitioner's counsel were heard on the said issue.

3. An advertisement was issued by the M.P. Professional Examination Board inviting applications for appointment on the post of Sub- Inspector/Platoon Commander/Subedar in the year 2014. The last date for submission of applications was 14.01.2015.

4. At the time the aforesaid advertisement was issued, the petitioner was working as a Constable. He applied for appointment on the aforesaid post under the unreserved category. The result was declared on 04.01.2016 (Annexure P/3), whereby he secured 162 marks in aggregate, which included 157 marks in the written test and 5 marks in the interview. He was declared selected for appointment to the post of Platoon Commander and was accordingly issued an appointment order on 08.02.2016 (Annexure P/5). Initially, he was posted at 34th Battalion, SAF, Dhar, and subsequently was transferred and posted at Gwalior. The petitioner accepted the appointment without any demur.

5. The petitioner now challenges his selection to the post of Platoon Commander and claims that he was entitled to appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector. The basis for making such claim is that there were certain discrepancies in the result declared by the Board, inasmuch as certain candidates belonging to the reserved category were included in the unreserved category. It is submitted that once a reserved category candidate avails the benefit of age relaxation on account of being in a reserved category, he or she cannot be migrated to the unreserved category. It is alleged that the respondents no.5 to 8 were erroneously included in the unreserved category. Resultantly, the petitioner could not get appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector and was appointed as Platoon Commander.

6. It is the submission of the petitioner that he secured 162 marks, which was equal to the cut-off of the last selected candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector in the District Police. However, he was given appointment to the post of Platoon Commander in SAF. This adversely affected his future prospects. It is further submitted that the petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector, District Police, but due to a mistake on the part of respondent no.1 to 4, appointments were given to respondent no.5 to 8, and he was deprived of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector. He has thus prayed for a direction to respondents no.1 to 4 to revise the result of the merit list by applying the rules of reservation in a proper manner and to offer him the post of Sub-Inspector, District Police, with all consequential benefits.

7. Considered the arguments of learned counsel for parties.

8. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is profitable to refer to the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors, reported in (1986)4 SCC 566, wherein in para 24, the Court held as under:

"24. Now, it is well settled that