Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging introduction of 87:13 percent formula for appointment by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC), a division bench comprising of Sheel Nagu and Amarnath Kesarwani, JJ., issued notice to the respondents and directed them to present the list of candidates held under the 13 % category.

In the instant matter, the petitioners appeared for interviews for examinations conducted by the MPPSC in the years 2019 and 2020. Their names were among the 13% of candidates selected for appointment and no information was provided to them regarding this status. The MPPSC adopted a formula of 87:13 percent, i.e., holding back the results of 13% of both general and Other Backward Class (OBC) category candidates for appointment. The petitioners further contended that the state government had increased reservation for the OBC category from 14% to 27%, which was challenged before this Court leading to a stay on the reservation. Subsequently, MPPSC introduced the 87:13 percent formula for appointment, which was not sanctioned by the High Court.

The Court instructed the State to file a parawise reply, disclosing the names and merit ranking obtained by individuals listed in the unoperated select lists of the Unreserved and Other Backward Class (OBC) categories, each comprising of 13% of the advertised vacancies. Additionally, the merit ranking of the petitioners was to be disclosed. The Court further stated that the return was required to explicitly state whether any candidate securing a lower merit ranking than the petitioners had been appointed to fill up 87% of the vacancies.

The Court issues notice to the respondents regarding the payment of Provident Fund within seven working days and failure to comply with the above-mentioned directive will result in the dismissal of the petition without further reference to the Court. The present matter is listed along with WP. No. 5901/2019 for further proceedings.

[Pragya Sharma v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1969, order dated 04-04-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Shri Anshuman Singh, Counsel for the Petitioners

Shri Ashish Anand Barnad, Additional A.G., Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/State

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.