ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:- “(a) to call for the relevant records of the case from the respondents; (b) to command the respondents to treat the petitioner as qualified in the selection process meant for appointment on the post of Professor in Commerce undertaken by the respondent No.2 and to appoint him on the post of Professor in Commerce in the regular pay scale of Rs.12,000-18,300/- (revised to Rs.37,400- 67,000/- + AGP Rs.10,000/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006), with all consequential and monetary benefits, by a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order; (c) to allow this petition with costs; (d) to pass such other order(s) as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant relief to the Petitioner.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the citizen of India and the resident of Barwani District and belonged to the ‘Bhilala’ Caste recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He had obtained a Ph.D. Degree in Commerce from Devi Ahilya University, Indore and had held a green card entitling him to an additional 5% marks in the interview. Pursuant to his selection by the M.P. Public Service Commission he had been appointed as Assistant Professor in Commerce on 13.11.1996 in the regular pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- and had been confirmed on the said post with effect from 02.12.1998. He had served in the teaching field for approximately fifteen years and had completed orientation and refresher courses to strengthen his academic qualifications. 3. It was further stated that Competent Committees had duly assessed the petitioner’s merit and performance, on the basis of which he had been granted the senior pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- with effect from 29.11.2002 and later the Selection Grade pay scale of Rs.12,000-18,300/- with effect from 2.12.2007. He had actively participated in National Research Seminars and had presented various papers in the discipline of Commerce. It was also asserted that he had been allotted a minor research project by the University Grants Commission on 28.3.2008 relating to the role of the Life Insurance Sector and Rural Markets in the Economic and Social Development of India, with special reference to the Nimar Districts. 4. It was also asserted that he had been allotted a minor research project by the University Grants Commission on 28.3.2008 relating to the role of the Life Insurance Sector and Rural Markets in the Economic and Social Development of India, with special reference to the Nimar Districts. 4. It was stated that an advertisement dated 19.1.2009 had been issued inviting applications for the post of Professor in several subjects, including Commerce, in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-18,300/- (revised to Rs.37,400-67,000/- + AGP Rs.10,000/- with effect from 01.01.2006). The petitioner, being fully eligible had applied under the Scheduled Tribe Category was called for an interview scheduled on 16.9.2011 before a Panel of Subject Experts. Out of seven posts of Professor in Commerce, two had been reserved for female candidates and five for male candidates and under the Scheduled Tribe Category only he and one other candidate, Dr. Mangilal Jadhav, had applied. 5. The petitioner’s grievance is that despite fulfilling all eligibility criteria and possessing considerable academic and research credentials, he had not been selected when the results were declared on 19.9.2011. The result indicated that 22 candidates had been selected under the General Category, 10 candidates had been placed on the waiting list and two candidates had been selected under the OBC category, while the posts reserved for SC/ST had been declared unfilled on the ground of non-availability of suitable candidates. Aggrieved by what he perceived as an arbitrary and unjust denial of appointment, the petitioner had approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner possessed the requisite educational qualifications for appointment on the post of Professor in Commerce in the Department of Higher Education of the State Government. It was stated that he had an outstanding academic and professional record, had contributed significantly to society through his association with various institutions, and had been actively engaged in research work. The petitioner was described as an eminent scholar who had presented research papers at national and international Seminars and conferences. 7. It was further submitted that the petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Professor in Commerce pursuant to his selection by the M.P. Public Service Commission in 1996 and had diligently discharged his duties, thereafter. His meritorious service had earned him the grant of senior and selection grade from the due date. 7. It was further submitted that the petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Professor in Commerce pursuant to his selection by the M.P. Public Service Commission in 1996 and had diligently discharged his duties, thereafter. His meritorious service had earned him the grant of senior and selection grade from the due date. The petitioner had also been sanctioned a minor research project by the University Grants Commission relating to rural economy, and he had contributed to the discipline of Commerce for over fifteen years, thereby justifying his claim for placement in the cadre of Professor in Commerce. 8. The counsel contended that the petitioner had a legitimate right to be considered fairly by experts possessing subject-matter knowledge in Commerce, and the respondents’ failure to select him warranted judicial interference. It was submitted that even news reports published on 11.10.2011 in the Indore edition of ‘Patrika’ had questioned the selection criteria adopted by the respondents, alleging that the criteria prescribed by the University Grants Commission had been disregarded. The impugned action was asserted to be illegal, unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of the petitioner’s Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. The petitioner accordingly prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to call for the relevant records, to treat him as qualified in the selection process for appointment to the post of Professor in Commerce, and to appoint him in the prescribed pay-scale with all consequential and monetary benefits. He further prayed that the petition be allowed with costs and any other order deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case be passed in his favour. 10. The counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed all the grounds raised by the petitioner and submitted that respondent No.2 had issued the advertisement dated 19.1.2009 upon receiving the requisition from the concerned Department. The advertisement had invited applications for the post of Professor in various subjects, including 37 posts in Commerce, in which 19 posts were unreserved, 6 were reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, 7 were reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category, and 5 were reserved for the Other Backward Class category. Out of the 7 Scheduled Tribe posts, 2 were reserved for female candidates and 5 were reserved for male candidates. 11. It was submitted that 64 candidates had applied for the post of Professor in Commerce, and the petitioner had also submitted his application. Out of the 7 Scheduled Tribe posts, 2 were reserved for female candidates and 5 were reserved for male candidates. 11. It was submitted that 64 candidates had applied for the post of Professor in Commerce, and the petitioner had also submitted his application. Upon scrutiny of the applications, certain Forms were rejected on the ground that the candidates did not possess the essential teaching experience prescribed in the advertisement. The respondents asserted that the petitioner had been assessed in accordance with the prescribed criteria. 12. The respondents further submitted that a minimum 31 marks out of 100 had been fixed as the qualifying benchmark in the interview for all categories of candidates. The petitioner had failed to secure the minimum required marks even after the addition of 5 marks available on account of the Green Card. It was stated that the petitioner had nevertheless participated in the entire Recruitment process for the post of Professor in Commerce. 13. It was also asserted that the result for the said post had been declared on 19.9.2011, and no candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe categories had qualified, as none had secured the minimum of marks. The respondents maintained that the selection process had been conducted strictly in accordance with the selection criteria prescribed by the University Grants Commission Regulation, 2003 and that no arbitrariness or violation of the petitioner’s Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had occurred. 14. It was further submitted in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner that he had applied for the post of Professor in Commerce under the Scheduled Tribe category and that only two applications had been received by the Public Service Commission against seven advertised posts and one of which belongs to him. He had possessed the requisite qualifications for the said post and had secured 23 marks out of 100 in the personal interview, whereas the prescribed minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Tribe candidates had been 31. It was asserted that, in accordance with the Circular dated 10 November 1964 and the amendment to the M.P. Public Service (Reservation of SC, ST and OBC) Rules, 1988, he had been entitled to a relaxation of 10% in the minimum qualifying marks. It was asserted that, in accordance with the Circular dated 10 November 1964 and the amendment to the M.P. Public Service (Reservation of SC, ST and OBC) Rules, 1988, he had been entitled to a relaxation of 10% in the minimum qualifying marks. Accordingly, by adding the benefit of relaxation, his score had amounted to 33 marks, exceeding the prescribed minimum of 31, and as reflected in the reply dated 24 February 2012 of respondent No.2, he stood eligible and selected for the post of Professor. 15. It was further stated that the petitioner’s work as an Assistant Professor in Commerce since 2nd December, 1998 had been assessed as excellent, as reflected in his past ACRs, and that he had possessed more than ten years of experience on the date of advertisement. It was also submitted that there had been no adverse material against him that could have disqualified him from being selected for the post of Professor in Commerce. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 17. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner had applied for the post of Professor in Commerce under the Scheduled Tribe category. Against seven advertised posts, respondent No.2 - the Public Service Commission received only two applications, one of which was that of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner possessed all requisite educational and technical qualifications prescribed for the said post. In the interview, the petitioner was awarded 23 marks out of 100, whereas the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for Scheduled Tribe candidates were 31. 18. It is further evident from the record that, in terms of the Circular dated 10.11.1964 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh (Annexure P/15), candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are entitled to relaxation in the qualifying marks in interviews or tests, ordinarily to the extent of 10% below the minimum prescribed for general candidates. This policy has statutory backing under the amended provisions of the M.P. Public Service (Reservation of SC, ST and OBC) Rules, 1988, as notified in the Gazette (Annexure P/16), which specifically provide for relaxation of 10% marks in the minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. Applying the said relaxation, the petitioner secured 33 marks (23+10), which is above the minimum qualifying marks of 31 prescribed for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Applying the said relaxation, the petitioner secured 33 marks (23+10), which is above the minimum qualifying marks of 31 prescribed for Scheduled Tribe candidates. This position is also admitted by respondent No.2 in paragraph B-2 of its reply dated 24.2.2012. 19. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks is, therefore, wholly misconceived and contrary to the governing Circulars and Statutory Rules. It is also significant to note that the petitioner's application was never rejected; rather, he was found eligible and was called for interview and thereby acknowledged his eligibility for consideration. The petitioner had more than ten years of teaching experience on the date of advertisement and there is no adverse material on record which could disqualify him from appointment to the post of Professor in Commerce. His service records as an Assistant Professor in Commerce since 2.12.1998 has been stated to be satisfactory and, in fact, excellent. 20. The underlying object of Reservation, as clearly spelt out in the Government Memorandum dated 10.11.1964 (Annexure P/15), is to ensure effective representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by granting them appropriate relaxation in the qualifying standards, while maintaining the minimum educational and technical qualifications for the said post. The Gazette notification amending the Rules of 1988 (Annexure P/16) reinforces this intent by mandating relaxation of 10% marks in the minimum qualifying marks, with selection to be made on the basis of merit within the Reserved category. The respondents were, therefore, bound to apply these provisions in letter and spirit. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner as selected is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the applicable Circulars and statutory Rules. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the petitioner selected for the post of Professor in Commerce under the Scheduled Tribe Category and to extend him all consequential benefits in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. 22. The petitioner shall be given seniority and notional pay fixation and other consequential benefits accordingly from the date the other candidates were appointed. The entire exercise be carried-out within a period of 3 (Three) months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. 23. 22. The petitioner shall be given seniority and notional pay fixation and other consequential benefits accordingly from the date the other candidates were appointed. The entire exercise be carried-out within a period of 3 (Three) months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. 23. Other pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.