Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition seeking quashment of impugned selection list for the post of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer (Class-III) and reconsider petitioner’s candidature by preparing a fresh merit list for OBC Female category candidates, a single-judge bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J.*, directed respondents 2 and 3 to follow the proper procedure as prescribed under Rule 11.2 and 11.3 of the Madhya Pradesh Kanishtha Seva (Sanyukta Aharta) Pariksha Niyam, 2013 (2013 Rules); and if the petitioner is found entitled to be given appointment, the same shall be extended to her within a further period of two months after issuing the new selection list.
In the instant matter, the petitioner appeared in the entrance examination for the post of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer (Class-III), which was advertised on 06-04-2023. Her name was included at Serial No. 10 of the waiting list dated 02-02-2024 under the OBC Female category.
The petitioner’s grievance arose after the final selection list was issued on 06-01-2025, which excluded her name. The petitioner contended that several selected candidates did not join, creating vacancies, however, instead of following the provisions of Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the 2013 Rules, the authorities filled those vacancies with candidates from the Unreserved (UR) category only.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for quashment of the impugned selection list dated 06-01-2025, direction to prepare a fresh merit list for OBC Female candidates and direction to migrate 15 OBC female candidates who qualified in the UR female category to the UR list and then prepare a new OBC Female merit list.
The respondents opposed the writ petition but did not file a reply despite being granted the final opportunity to do so.
The Court noted that relevant Rules, i.e., Rule 11.2 which states that a reserved category candidate selected in the unreserved category shall be counted in the unreserved category only and not under the reserved quota and Rule 11.3 which states that if a reserved category candidate secures marks equal to those of the unreserved category, they shall be adjusted against the unreserved category.
The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner’s contention was based on clear procedural guidelines laid down under the 2013 Rules. The Court stated that respondents’ failure to file a reply weighed against them. The Court emphasised on the importance of compliance with Rule 11.2 and Rule 11.3 and noted the illegality in limiting the appointments to the UR category alone after non-joining of selected candidates.
The Court disposed of this petition with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to follow the proper procedure as prescribed under Rule 11.2 and 11.3 of the Rules of 2013, and if the petitioner is found entitled to be given appointment, the same shall be extended to her within a further period of two months after issuing the new selection list.
[Minakshi v. General Administration Dept., WP No. 3954 of 2025, Decided on 02-05-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Jayesh Gurnani, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri Raghav Shrivastava, appearing on behalf of Advocate General
Shri Dev Singh on behalf of Shri Manu Maheshwari, Counsel for the Respondent
