Madhya Pradesh High Court
Giriraj Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25062
1 WP-9976-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 26th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9976 of 2026
GIRIRAJ UPADHYAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhinesh Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aditya Pachori appeared for the respondent/PSC.
Shri Anuj Singh PL appeared for respondent.
ORDER
This petition has been filed while praying for the following reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ of Certiorari, order, declaring the action of the Respondents in cancelling Advertisement No. 57/2024, (Annexure P-3) subsequently reducing the vacancies from 120 to 67, (Annexure P-4) and thereafter enhancing the same to 123 vide corrigendum dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) at the final stage of the selection process, as arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
b. Issue a writ of certiorari, setting aside the corrigendum dated 19.01.2026 increasing the vacancies from 67 to 123 after completion of the written examination and just before the declaration of written exam result.
c. Direct the Respondents to conduct and finalize the recruitment process strictly in accordance with the originally notified 67 vacancies under Advertisement No. 04/2025, dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) in a fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary manner; d. Direct the Respondents to furnish a clear and Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:59:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25062
2 WP-9976-2026 reasonable explanation for the alteration in the number of posts from 120 seats in the first advertisement dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) to 67 seats in the second advertisement dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P-4). e. Grant any other appropriate writ, order, or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
f. Award costs of the present petition in favour of the Petitioner."
2. The petitioner has called in question the action of the respondents by which the respondents have increased the number of vacancies from 67 to 123 in respect of recruitment against the post of Food Safety Officer (FSO). It is contended by the counsel that initially an advertisement in respect of 120 posts of FSO was issued by the respondent No.2. On 28/04/2025 recruitment process was cancelled, seeking a change in eligibility criteria contained in Annexure P/3. Later on fresh advertisement was issued for the posts of FSO by reducing the number of vacancies from 120 posts to 67 posts and a written exam was also conducted on 14/12/2025. On 19/12/2026 corrigendum was issued, increasing the number of vacancies from 67 to 123 posts at the final stage of selection.
3. It is contended by the counsel that the action of the respondents amounted to changing the rules of the game after the process had begun. Further, there was a violation of legitimate expectation inasmuch as, out of the total posts, 67 FSO posts were earmarked for recruitment during the year 2025-26, the examination has already been conducted on 14.12.2025, and appointments are proposed to be finalized by March 2026. The remaining 57 posts are proposed to be filled in the subsequent year 2026-27 through a separate recruitment process. The petitioner along with similarly situated Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:59:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25062 3 WP-9976-2026 candidates legitimately expected that the recruitment process would be conducted in accordance with the policy, and further opportunities can be availed in the year 2026-27 but at the decisive stage only, rules of the game have been changed by the respondents which ultimately deprived the petitioner's right of a fair and reasonable chance to compete in the year 2026-
27. It is contended by the counsel that such an action was unsustainable.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that the issue does not require much debate as an identical petition i.e. WP No.49460/2025 (Dr. Aniket Agrawal and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.) and already been dismissed. In the said case, the identical Clause of the advertisement was taken into consideration and by the said Clause, liberty was reserved by the Authority with them to increase the number of vacancy and considering the said Clause, the petition was dismissed. Counsel contends that in the case in hand, there also exists identical Clause Three (ii); therefore, there being a Clause in the advertisement empowering the respondents to increase the number of vacancies, there were no irregularities in issuing the corrigendum contained in Annexure P/6.
5. Having considered the submissions and perusal of the record reflects that in the case in hand the action of the respondents regarding the increasing number of vacancies is being questioned. Clause Three (ii) of the advertisement provided that the Authority is empowered to increase the number of vacancies. Clause Three (ii) of the advertisement is reproduced as under:
"तीन (i) ***
(ii) शासन ारा पद क सं या का पुनर ण करने पर इस पद सं या म प रवतन कया जा सकता है ।"Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:59:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25062 4 WP-9976-2026
6. In the case of Dr. Aniket Agrawal (Supra), identical Clause was taken into consideration and ultimately, the Court, considering the same, dismissed the petition. Paragraphs 4,5 and 6, of the order are reproduced herein:
"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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:59:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25062 5 WP-9976-2026 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. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, as the identical issue has already been dealt with by this Court and the petition has been dismissed, this petition also stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:59:08