Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407
1 WP. No. 6772 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 3rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6772 of 2018
DEEPAK SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):
"i) That, the respondents be commanded to take decision over representation contained in Annexure - P/1 within a specified time.
ii) That, the order dated 27.6.2012 and the order contained in Annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential keeping in view that the similarly situated persons have already been reinstated in services.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407 2 WP. No. 6772 of 2018
iii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted."
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that applications were invited from the eligible persons for filling up of the post of Patwari by way of Patwari Recruitment Test, 2008. The said test was conducted by M.P. Professional Examination Board, Bhopal. Petitioner applied for the post of Patwari. Petitioner had appeared in the said competitive exam being a candidate and ultimately the result of the said examination was declared. Though petitioner was having position in merit list, the respondents did not permit petitioner to join the post of Patwari while the seat was available and rejected the candidature of petitioner by order dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure P-2).
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is having diploma from MATS University and petitioner possesses the requisite qualification but the case of petitioner has not been considered. Learned counsel submits that being aggrieved by the said order present petition has been filed for the relief(s) mentioned above.
4. Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the petitioner has acquired the qualification of DCA on 2009 after the cut-off date i.e. 7th July 2008. He further submitted that as per advertisement issued in the year 2008, the last date for submission of form was 07.07.2008, relevant clauses of said advertisement regarding last date and qualification are quoted below:
4- Hkjk gqvk vkosnu i= tek djuk% Hkjk gqvk vkosnu&i= 07-07-2008 rd e.My dk;kZy; esa Mkd }kjk ;k O;fäxr :i ls çkIr gks tkuk pkfg;sA fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds i'pkr~ çkIr vkosnu&i=ksa dks fujLr ekuk tk;sxkA Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407 3 WP. No. 6772 of 2018 1-8 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk% gk;j lsdaMªh ;k gkbZLdwy ¼10$+2½ mÙkh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gS lkFk gh 'O' Level certification from DOEACC/IETE ;k UGC ls ekU;rk çkIr fo'ofo|ky; }kjk lapkfyr@iath--r@ekU;rk çkIr@lEc) laLFkk ls 1 o"khZ; dEI;wVj fMIyksek ¼DCA½ ;k dEI;wVj esa mPp f'k{kk çkIr gksuk pkfg;sA
5. It is further submitted that by order dated 8.03.2011, passed in W.P. No. 2871/2010 (Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar v. State of M.P.) the Division Bench of this Court has already decided that cut-off date i.e 7.7.2008 cannot be extended. He further relied upon the case of Sanjay Datt Dubey v. State of M.P. and Ors., 2022 (1) MPLJ 105 wherein it has also been held that appointment made is bad in law as the educational qualification prescribed in Patwari Examination, acquired after cut off date i.e 7.7.2008. He submitted that in the present case, there appears same situation. Hence, he supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the present petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
7. It is settled position that if cut-off date is not prescribed then the last date of submission of form is the cut-off date as per judgment dated 8.3.2011 passed in W.P. No. 2871/2010, relevant para of which is quoted herein below:-
"11.Accordingly, we hold and answer the question referred to us by holding that the circular dated 27.7.2009 and 26.08.2009 do not extend the cut-off date for acquiring eligibility or educational qualification upto 30th of November, 2009, it only applies to such of the candidates who already acquired the qualification prior to 7.7.2008 who had submitted the degree certificates or diploma certificates issued by a particular institute. The circular only permits such candidates to submit the degree diploma certificates issued under the seal and signature of the university on or before 30th of November, 2009."Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407 4 WP. No. 6772 of 2018
8. Further, relevant para in the case of Sanjay Datt Dubey (supra) is quoted herein below:-
"25. As private respondents did not have educational qualification prescribed in Patwari Examination 2008 on cutoff date i.e. on 7-7- 2008 therefore, their appointment is bad in law. Respondent No.1 is directed to take action in case of private respondents in W.P No. 10216/2012 and W.P No. 1293/2013 accordingly."
9. In another judgment, the Division Bench also held in WA. No. 207/2017 (Ravi Soni v. State of M.P.) by Judgment dated 17.4.2017 as under:-
"In view of the decision of Division Bench rendered in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar & others Vs State of M.P & others passed in WP No. 2871/2010 (s) dated 08/03/2011 the issue involved herein is no more res-integra.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that other equally situated candidates who acquired qualification subsequent to the cut-off date were given benefit by Annexure P-4, Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6. The appellant is thus seeking negative parity which is de-horse the constitutional scheme. If a benefit has been wrongly extended by the State then the same can not be repeated by judicial interference on the anvil of similar treatment. Article 14/16 of Constitution of India do not recognize negative parity as a good ground. This court is bolstered in its view by the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 wherein the Apex Court held thus:-" by now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it can not be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favor of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, other can not invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407 5 WP. No. 6772 of 2018 superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order Chandigarh Admn. V Jagjit Singh, Jaipur Development Authority V Daulat Mal Jain, Union of India Vs J.V. Subhaiah, Gurusharan Singh V. NDMC, State of Haryana V. Ram Kumar Mann, Faridabad CT. Scan Centre V. D.G. Health Services, Style (Dress Land) V. UT, Chandigarh, State of Bihar V Kameshar Prasad Singh, Union of India V. International Trading Co. and Directorate of Film Festival V. Gaurav Ashwin Jain". And the same dictum has been followed in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs Chadreshwar Pathak, (2014) 13 SCC 232."
10. The law with respect to the fact that a candidate should have all the required qualification on the cut off date is no more res intergra. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar Misra reported in (2017) 11 SCC 521 has held as under:
"6. The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut off date, if any, described under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possess the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post. Therefore, the so-called confession made by the officer in the Court that persons haying lower merit than the respondent have been appointed as SDI (Basic), having been based on misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned single Judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for issuing the direction for Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407 6 WP. No. 6772 of 2018 appointment of the respondent. The Division Bench was equally in error in confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge. Thus the judgment of the learned single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set aside."
11. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Chander Shekhar and another, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 has held as under:
"6....... The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that dat e alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similiarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their application ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority Judgement. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others [1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168]. The reasoning in majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able to get the bests talent available and that such course was in furtherence of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible Justification It is, in our considered Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407 7 WP. No. 6772 of 2018 opinion, a clear error of low and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have allowed to appear for interview."
12. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar K. Mandal and others vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 519 has held as under:
"What happens when a cut off date is fixed for fulfilling the prescribed qualification relating to age by a candidate for appointment and the effect of any non-prescription has been considered by this Court in several cases. The principles culled out from the decisions of this Court are as follows:
(1) The cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules; (2) If there is no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; and (3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority."
13. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262 has held as under:-
"14. In view of several decisions of this Court relied on by the High Court and referred to herein above, it was expected of the State Government notifying the vacancies to have clearly laid down and stated the cut off date by reference to which the applicants were required to satisfy their eligibility. This was not done. It was pointed Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407 8 WP. No. 6772 of 2018 out on behalf of the several appellants/petitioners before this Court that the practice prevalent in Punjab has been to determine the eligibility by reference to the date of interview and there are innumerable cases wherein such candidates have been seeking employment as were not eligible on the date of making the applications or the last date appointed for receipt of the applications but were in the process of acquiring eligibility qualifications and did acquire the same by the time they were called for and appeared at the interview. Several such persons have been appointed but no one has challenged their appointments and they have continued to be in public employment. Such a loose practice, though prevalent, cannot be allowed to be continued and must be treated to have been put to an end. The reason is apparent. The applications made by such candidates as were not qualified but were in the process of acquiring eligibility qualifications would be difficult to be scrutinised and subjected to the process of approval or elimination and would only result in creating confusion and uncertainty. Many would be such applicants who would be called to face interview but shall have to be returned blank if they failed to acquire requisite eligibility qualifications by the time of interview. In our opinion the authorities of the State should be tied down to the principles governing the cut off date for testing the eligibility qualifications on the principles deducible from decided cases of this Court and stated herein above which have now to be treated as the settled service jurisprudence."
14. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat and others vs. Arvind kumar T. Tiwari and another, reported in AIR 2012 SC 3281 has held as under:-
"11. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules is, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegibility and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407 9 WP. No. 6772 of 2018 relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court."
15. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1817 has held as under:
"19. If the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be regularized, particularly, when the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be.
24. A departmental proceeding against the appellant might have been initiated after the change of management. We will also assume that the said proceeding was initiated after the contempt proceeding was initiated. Appellant, however, has filed a writ application for issuance of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus. He, therefore, must establish existence of a legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in the State. If he did not possess the requisite qualification to hold a post, he could not have any legal right to continue. It was, therefore, immaterial as to why and when the said proceeding had been initiated against him."
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Dipitimayee Parida vs. State of Orissa And Others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 687 has held as under:-
"16. Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application. This has been so held in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan stating: (SCC p. 175, para 10) Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407 10 WP. No. 6772 of 2018 "10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed."
17. Admittedly, the petitioner has acquired the qualification of DCA on 2009 i.e. after cut-off date i.e.7.7.2008, therefore, this Court does not find any Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4407 11 WP. No. 6772 of 2018 illegality in the impugned orders dated 27.06.2012 and 28.06.2012 (Annexure P/2), warranting interference.
18. Accordingly, the present petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/8/2026 3:52:17 PM