IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 4 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 5390 of 2024 SMT. PRITAM KAUR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Akash Choudhury - Advocate with Shri Naveen Vaswani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vinod Mishra - P.L. for the respondent/State.

Shri Rahul Diwaker - Advocate with Shri Shubham Rai - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

None for the respondent no.5 despite service.

ORDER The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs :-

i) Summon the entire material record from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal.

ii) Upon holding the result of the respondent No.5 bad and law, set aside the same, only to the extent that it mentions 'merit 1' in the merit/ waiting column and further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent authorities to issue appointment to the petitioner on the post of Netra Sahayak after following due procedure, with all the consequential benefits arising thereto.

iii) Upon holding letter dated 15.2.2024 (Annexure P1) as bad in law, quash and set aside the same.

iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Quo warranto for quashing the appointment of the private respondents in the interest of justice.

v) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed.

vi) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was issued for three posts of Eye Assistant (Ministerial) for Combined Examination Recruitment Test 2023, vide advertisement annexure P/2. It is further submitted that the petitioner being eligible applied for the said posts. Out of 3 posts, 2 posts were unreserved and one post was reserved for ST category. The petitioner has submitted the form, annexure P-3. The petitioner was given admit card vide annexure P-4. The petitioner had appeared in the examination. The result was declared on 12.2.2024. The petitioner had obtained 65.97 marks out of 100 whereas respondent No.5 had obtained 62.88 marks. Copy of the merit list has been filed as annexure P-5. It has submitted that in the mark sheet of the respondent No.5, there is a clause which is mentioned for merit in which against the name of respondent No.5, merit 1 is written, while in the case of the petitioner, despite of getting more marks, no merit is written. On the basis of said result the respondent No.5 after due verification of documents has been selected vide annexure P-1. The petitioner has submitted the representation being aggrieved by such arbitrary action of the authorities, but of no avail.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per clause 9.3 of the advertisement, annexure P-2, the age relaxation has been given to the female candidates according to which they are eligible to file application form till 45 years of age. However, for the Open category it is confined to 18-40 years, which is also reproduced in clause 2 of the table mentioned in clause 9.4. The petitioner has submitted her application for Post Code 14. In the advertisement Form, 2 unreserved posts (1 post was shown to be vacant for unreserved category open, One for Open contractual) and 1 for ST category. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, despite of getting higher marks, was not selected and the respondent No.5 who got less marks has been selected for appointment on the said post. It is further submitted that in the reply of the State, though some exceptions have been carved out which are discriminatory in nature because no such exception for a woman candidate can be carved out stating that she does not fall in Open unreserved category.

4. In response, it is submitted that the stand of the respondent State is misconceived as there cannot be any such gender discrimination because in clause 9.3 there is provision of age concession/relaxation and not a reservation, which has been given to a woman candidate. Therefo