Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 747 (MP)

Ajit Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2024-12-02

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, VIVEK JAIN

body2024
ORDER : Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ. Notice issued. Notice accepted by learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is the case of petitioners that meritorious candidates of reserved category who migrated to unserved category, have been put to disadvantage because lesser meritorious candidates of their respective category who remained in their reserved category, got better choice/ preference in allocation of service. It is contended that the issue raised in these writ petitions is same and similar and no more res integra as has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Kurmi vs. State of M.P. and others vide its judgment 24.02.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.7663/2021 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the working out of the reservation policy though is in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and another vs. Union of India , 1992 Supp 3 SCC 217, however, the allocation of service would be based on merit and a more meritorious candidate would not be put to a disadvantage on account of working out of the reservation policy in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (supra). 2. The learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposed the petitions, but could not point out any distinguishing feature from the case of Praveen Kumar Kurmi (supra). 3. In Praveen Kumar Kurmi (supra) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 12 as under:- "In view of the aforesaid position, we are not required to pen down a detailed judgment but would only like to make some observations so that the problem doesn’t arise in the future. There is no cavil to the proposition sought to be advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that the manner of working out of the reservation policy is in accordance with the judgment of this court in Indra Sawhney & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 1992 Suppl. 3 SCC 2017. However, the allocation of the service is a different aspect. The appellant got selected, on merit without being required to avail of the benefit of the reservation. If he had availed of the benefit of the reservation, he would have been allotted District Police Force. He has been allotted Special Armed Force. 3 SCC 2017. However, the allocation of the service is a different aspect. The appellant got selected, on merit without being required to avail of the benefit of the reservation. If he had availed of the benefit of the reservation, he would have been allotted District Police Force. He has been allotted Special Armed Force. The quibble was only with the particular service being allocated to the appellant and the result of what the respondents did was that the person lower in merit to the appellant who in fact availed of the reservation policy benefit was entitled to the District Police Force while the appellant was denied his first preference and allotted the Special Armed Force. This issue is really no more res integra in view of a catena of judicial pronouncements for the proposition that the scenario where a person, though from the reserved category, is not required to avail of the benefit of the same on account of his merit, would be required to be adjusted against the general seat, at the same time it should not work out to the disadvantage of such a candidate and he may not be placed in a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. We have penned down so to ensure that the respondents do not find themselves in a predicament as in the present case for the future. It is directed that the appellant would be entitled to the first preference of District Police Force with all benefits of pay and seniority of that force from the date he joined the Special Armed Force. The civil appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving parties to bear their own costs." 4. The similar issue has recently been considered and decided by this Court in the case of Richa Tamrakar and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others vide order dated 12.11.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.1333 of 2023 wherein it has been held as under:- "13. The civil appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving parties to bear their own costs." 4. The similar issue has recently been considered and decided by this Court in the case of Richa Tamrakar and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others vide order dated 12.11.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.1333 of 2023 wherein it has been held as under:- "13. As per the Supreme Court though working out of the reservation policy is in accordance with Indra Sawhney (supra), wherein a person who applies in the reserved category however, secures marks more than the cut off marks for an unreserved category, is to be treated as an unreserved candidate and allotted a seat in order of merit as per the unreserved category, the reserve seat which then falls vacant is allotted to an unreserved category person. However, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Praveen Kumar Kurmi (supra), a more meritorious candidate cannot be put to a disadvantage merely because he secures marks more than the cut off for unreserved candidates. 14. In the instant case, this is exactly what seems to have been done by the department. Petitioners who applied in the reserve category and secured marks more than the cut off marks of the unreserved category, have been put to a great disadvantage. Petitioners as per their merit were entitled to be placed in the School Education Department, whereas petitioners have been allotted a school in the Tribal Welfare Department. The candidate much lower in merit who has secured a seat in the reserved category has been allotted the school opted by the petitioners. The Supreme Court in Praveen Kumar Kurmi (supra) has categorically held a person, though from the reserve category, who is not required to avail the benefit of reservation on account of his merit would be required to be adjusted against the general seat but at the same time that should not work out to disadvantage of such a candidate and he should not be placed in a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserve category candidate." 5. In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed and disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Richa Tamrakar (supra). In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed and disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Richa Tamrakar (supra). The petitioners would be entitled to reallocation by working out their choice afresh in terms of judgment in case of Praveen Kumar Kurmi (supra) & Richa Tamrakar (supra). The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall comply with the order within eight weeks.