Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Aniket Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1591
1 WP-49460-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 49460 of 2025
DR. ANIKET AGRAWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Manan Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kamalnath Nayak - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Aditya Pachori - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This is a petition by the petitioners while praying for the following reliefs:
"7.1 To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to reopen the online application window for recruitment to the post of Medical Officer pursuant to Advertisement No. 09/2024 dated 08.08.2024 (as amended), so as to permit eligible MBBS degree holders, including the petitioners, who acquired the requisite minimum qualification after the earlier cut-off date, to participate in the selection process; 7.2 In the alternative, direct the respondents to revise/extend the cut-off date for determining mandatory educational eligibility, so as to include candidates who acquired their MBBS degree up to a reasonable and rational date, inconsonance with the academic calendar and prevailing recruitment practices; 7.3 Declare that exclusion of the petitioners from the selection process, despite non-finalization of recruitment, delay in holding examination and enhancement of vacancies, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 09-01-2026 14:51:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1591
2 WP-49460-2025 India;
7.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under present facts and circumstances of this case be granted with costs of present petition in interest of justice."
2. Counsel for the petitioners contended that initially an advertisement was issued on 08.08.2024 and as per the said advertisement which is contained in Annexure P/1, the cut-off date to apply was 04.10.2024 alongwith the essential qualifications. The said date was further extended vide Annexure P/3 to dated 19.01.2025. Initially, appointments were made against 895 vacant posts. Later on, Annexure P/4 dated 14.11.2025 was issued and the vacant posts were enhanced to 1832. It is contended by the counsel that undisputedly, the petitioners were not having the eligibility/qualification by the cut-off date i.e. 19.01.2025. However, the petitioners acquired the eligibility criteria subsequently in the month of April and July, 2025. Therefore, once the decision was taken by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission to increase the vacant posts, the petitioners ought to have been extended an opportunity to apply for the posts taking into consideration the enhanced number of vacancies. The Counsel, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Nitisha Choudhary and another v. The State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2024:RJ-JD:37111.
3. Counsel for the PSC submitted that there cannot be a new cut-off date in the event of enhancement of numbers of vacant posts. This is evident from note no.1 which was incorporated in the advertisement itself. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 09-01-2026 14:51:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1591 3 WP-49460-2025 contended by the counsel that in the event of increase in vacancies, the additional applications are not required to be requisitioned or received and the existing applicants can only be considered even against the enhanced number of vacancies. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted in the present petition.
4. Considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, a perusal of the advertisement reflects that the same contains note no.1 which is reproduced as under:
"(1) शासन ारा पद क सं या का पुनर ण करने पर इस पद सं या म प रवतन कया जा सकता है । पद क सं या म वृ केवल सा ा कार ारा चयन क थित म सा ा कार काय म के काशन ितिथ तक तथा ऑनलाइन पर ा क थित म ऑनलाइन पर ा के प रणाम क ितिथ तक क जा सकेगी। बढ़े हुए पद हे तु अित र आवेदन प ा नह ं कए जाएंगे। पद क सं या म कमी चयन के कसी भी तर पर क जा सकेगी।"
5. A perusal of note no.1 reflects that it was within the competence of the respondent to increase the number of vacancies. In the event of increase in vacancies, fresh applications were not to be invited. It is undisputed that the petitioners were not possessing the qualifications for being considered against the vacancies by the cut-off date and undisputedly, the qualifications were acquired by the petitioners after the cut-off date i.e. 19.01.2025.
6. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim that the cut-off date for submission of the application forms should also be extended, particularly in view of note no.1 incorporated in the advertisement contained in Annexure P/1. There is no challenge to said note no.1 in this petition.
Simultaneously, the reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Nitisha Choudhary (supra) is misplaced, inasmuch as before the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 09-01-2026 14:51:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1591 4 WP-49460-2025 Rajasthan High Court, the interpretation of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathic Avam Praktrik Chikitsa Seva Niyam , 1996 was under consideration and ultimately, the Rajasthan High Court making a reference to the aforesaid rule, set aside the advertisement which was issued subsequently in respect of the extended date and the directions were issued to the respondents therein to stick/adhere to the process which was initiated on the basis of initial advertisement dated 03.10.2023. A perusal of the decision of Rajasthan High Court clearly reveals that there was no direction to allow any other candidate to apply afresh, who by the cut-off date, did not have the eligibility/qualification to apply for the posts. As such, the said decision being distinguishable, the petitioner cannot claim any assistance on the basis of the same.
7. Resultantly, this Court does not find any merit in the petition in view of the specific note no.1 incorporated in the advertisement.
8. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE vc Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 09-01-2026 14:51:42