Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kumud Gajbhiye vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9515 of 2022
SMT. KUMUD GAJBHIYE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 7154 of 2022
KEVENDRA BACHLE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8318 of 2022
NATHURAM HARIYALE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8328 of 2022
MANOJ BHAGORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9152 of 2022
SURENDRA GOLAIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16999 of 2022
GOPIKISHAN RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Chopra - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri V.P. Tiwari - Government Advocate for the respondent - State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/23/2025
12:50:47 PM
2
ORDER
The present petitions have been filed seeking identical relief and are on identical facts. Therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, reference to facts and documents is taken from WP No.7154/2022.
2. The petitioners are working on the post of Assistant Grade-II or other clerical/ministerial posts in the Department of Industries, Government of Madhya Pradesh. They are aggrieved by the requirement made in the notification of vacancies vide Annexure P-3 dated 23.09.2020 for lateral recruitment to the post of Assistant Manager (previously known as Inspector) from Ministerial employees of the Department and fixing maximum age limit of 45 years as on 01.01.2020. The representation of the petitioners submitted in compliance of order passed in WP No.6579/2020 has been rejected vide Annexure P-16, which is also put to challenge.
3. Learned Government Advocate for the State has raised a preliminary objection that identical petitions have been dismissed by this Court and writ appeal has also been dismissed vide Annexure R-4 dated 04.04.2022 passed in WA No.300/2022. Upon considering the said objection, it is seen that in the said case, the petition was simply filed seeking age relaxation and during pendency of the said petition, the order dated 03.11.2021 (Annexure P-16 herein) was placed on record by the State Government and under those circumstances, in absence of challenge Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 3 to decision dated 03.11.2021, the petition was dismissed by the Single Bench, which was upheld by the Division Bench on the ground that the decision dated 03.11.2021 had not been put to challenge before the Single Bench. As the present petition has been filed challenging the decision dated 03.11.2021, therefore the petitions are maintainable and are,thus, heard on merits.
4. The Department of Industries, Government of India has framed statutory rules known as M.P. State Industries Class-III Executive Service Rules, 1985. As per Schedule-V to the said rule, a special scheme for filling up posts of Inspectors by limited competitive examination from the ministerial employees of the Department of Industries has been set up.The said scheme is Schedule-V to the aforesaid Rules of 1985 and as per the said Schedule, there would be lateral induction to the post of Inspectors by limited competitive examination from the ministerial employees of the Directorate of Industries, the upper age limit for which has been fixed vide Clause 2(iii) as 40 years and for SC/ST employees, as 45 years. Therefore, it is the contention of the State Government that since the upper age limit is statutory in nature as per the statutory scheme for such lateral induction for appointment to the post of Inspector, which is otherwise a direct recruitment post, therefore, no further relaxation can be claimed by the petitioners. Undisputedly, the post of Inspector has now been re-designated as Assistant Manager.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 4
5. Heard.
6. Though the petitioners have relied on various circulars of the State Government in the matter of relaxation given to SC/ST candidates for filling up of backlog posts, but since the vacancies in question are not advertised as backlog vacancies, therefore, the stipulations governing filling up of backlog vacancies would not apply to the present case. The State Government has also issued a general Circular dated 04.07.2019 in the matter of filling up of direct recruitment posts in the State Government services and as per the said Circular dated 04.07.2019, after exemption the maximum age limit for male as well as female employees belonging to SC, ST and OBC categories is 45 years and therefore, the impugned order Annexure P-16 refers to the aforesaid Circular.
7. A further reason is mentioned in the said Circular that the purpose of keeping the maximum age limit of 45 years is to have energetic and youthful personnel for such posts and if the candidates would be appointed up to the maximum age limit of 45 years, then they would at least work for 15 years and would get at least one or two chances for promotion, which would be better for the establishment and organizational setup. This Court is unable to interfere in the statutory maximum age limit as set up by the Schedule-V to the Rules of 1985 so also the reasons assigned in the Order Annexure P-16 that if a person is directly recruited to the post of Assistant Manager by the age of 45 years, then he would have some reasonable time Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 5 to give to the organization and excel in the cadre by getting one or two promotions also. This reasoning and justification of the respondents cannot be faulted with. This is because the post of Assistant Manager is not the promotional post of ministerial employees and it is a special avenue granted to the ministerial cadre employees for lateral induction on direct recruitment posts in Managerial Cadre posts by facing a competitive examination limited to the departmental candidates. The nature of duties of ministerial cadre employees cannot be equated with the nature of duties of Assistant Managers, so that the ministerial cadre employees may argue that even if they are appointed as Assistant Manager at the advanced age of 55 years or more, then also they would have something to give to the Department by the sheer experience they have earned in the lower posts.
8. The counsel for the petitioners when faced with this situation has limited his arguments only to the question that since the limited lateral induction has not been carried out since last 26 years, therefore, appropriate age relaxation should have been granted to the petitioners and for that purpose even the Administrative department, i.e. the Directorate of Industries had proposed to the MSME department for entering in correspondence with General Administration Department to get the age limit enhanced from 45 to 55 years.
9. However, since the aforesaid proposal has not been accepted and rather it has been rejected by the MSME department vide Annexure P-16, Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 6 therefore, this Court cannot direct enhancement of maximum age limit to a particular level as claimed by the petitioners, as it is in the domain of the employer.
10.The counsel for petitioners then restricted his arguments to the question that though earlier the post may not have been advertised for lateral entry, but since advertisement was issued in the year 2016 and the process was started but later on shelved, at least those candidates who had the requisite age limit as on the date of earlier advertisement of 2016 should be allowed to participate in the subsequent advertisement Annexure P-3, because at least in 2016 the Department had come to a conclusion that the posts are required to be filled up by them and they need to fill up the posts of Assistant Manager by way of lateral induction. However, for the reasons best known to the respondent department, the said process was shelved. No examination was conducted and not even a single candidate was appointed as a result of the said process and the said process has been succeeded by the subsequent process initiated vide letter annexure P-3 dated 23.09.2020 and therefore, those candidates who were eligible in the process of 2016 should be permitted in the subsequent process initiated in the year 2020.
11. The aforesaid prayer was vehemently objected by learned Government Advocate for the State on the ground that this Court should Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 7 not interfere in the maximum age limit which is within the administrative domain.
12. This Court has already refused to interfere in the maximum age limit fixed by the respondents at 45 years and the reasoning given by the respondents that by fixing the maximum age limit of 45 years for direct recruitment posts, the Government ensures entry of energetic and youthful officers, who can understand the duties and then excel in the career and contribute something for betterment of the establishment. A person entering a new job in advanced age would not be in a position to contribute positively to the establishment and therefore, the age limit of 45 years has been fixed by the State Government.
13. Coming to the contention of the petitioners that some relaxation should be given as compared to the process initiated in 2016, because by advertising the posts at least in the year 2016 and then they shelving the process without assigning any reason, those persons who were eligible in the 2016 process should be allowed to participate. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Nitish Kumar and others vs. Union of India & another 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1542.
14. The Delhi High Court in the aforesaid case has held that once on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the process for appointment on the post of Sepoy (Pharma) and Indian Army was not conducted between 2019 and 2021, therefore, the candidates who were over-age in the intervening time Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 8 should not be held disqualified. In the same breadth and with the same purpose is the Circular dated 18.09.2022 issued by the State Government, whereby the State Government has given special relaxation of 3 years for the first advertisements issued after COVID-19 pandemic. The said relaxation has been extended by a Division Bench of this Court in WP No.4633 of 2022, not only to those vacancies notified after issuance of the said Circular dated 18.09.2022 but also to those vacancies who were advertised for the first time after COVID-19 pandemic, though may be prior to 18.09.2022.
15. However, the advertisement in question has been issued in 23.09.2020, which was during the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore, the benefit of Circular dated 18.09.2022 as interpreted by Division Bench in WP No.4633/2022 may not be applicable to the petitioners strictly. The issue of validity of relaxation granted to those candidates, who were within the age limit in a previous advertisement and then the vacancies not having been advertised for a long time,then given relaxation so that those who were eligible in the earlier advertisement may apply in the subsequent advertisement, was under consideration before the Jharkhand High Court.In the case of ReenaKumari vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission reported in 2021 SCC OnLineJhar1356. Though the ultimate result of the said case was against the candidates because the candidates sought unlimited relaxations in the said case, but the Division Bench of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 9 High Court held that relaxation given for a purpose to bring parity between two sets of candidates where examination was not conducted for 5 years and then given that much relaxation for which examination was not conducted for preceding years, such relaxation was held lawful by the Division Bench. The Division Bench held as under:-
"19. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has submitted that fixing of the cut- off date is a policy decision of the State Government and though the subsequent Rule of the year 2021 does not provide for relaxation in age but taking into consideration the predicament of the candidates, the age has been relaxed fixing the cut-off date as on 01.08.2016 which is having the rationale because it is the date of issuance of the advertisement of 6th Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by the JPSC wherein the maximum cut-off date has been fixed as 01.08.2010 and as such, the candidates have got opportunity to participate in the process of selection from 01.08.2010 to 01.08.2016. In order to provide an opportunity [to participate in the process of selection, the cut- off date in pursuance of the subsequent advertisement being Advertisement No. 01/2021, has been fixed to 01.08.2016 and as such, it cannot be said that the State Government has acted irrationally and anybody has been deprived from a chance to participate in the process of selection. Therefore, the action of the State Government in fixing the upper age limit as on 01.08.2016 cannot be said to be an arbitrary action.
xx xx xx
28. The JPSC came out with an advertisement i.e., Advertisement No. 01/2020 inviting applications to fill up the post of the year 2017, 2018 and 2019. In the said advertisement, the calculation of age was provided under Condition No. 4 prescribing therein the cut-off date, i.e., 01.08.2019 for calculating the minimum age and 01.08.2011 for calculating the maximum age xx xx xx
34. Further contention is that it is not a case that any candidate has been deprived from participating rather the candidates have participated in the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination which was conducted in the year 2016 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 10 wherein the cut-off date for calculating the maximum age was 01.08.2010 and thereafter the cut-off date to calculate the maximum age has been fixed as 01.08.2016 so that the candidates could not participate due to the fact the exams could not be conducted, may participate after getting such relaxation and, as such, it cannot be said that the State has acted irrationally.
xx xx xx
45. So far as the fact of the given case is concerned, it is not in dispute that for one reason or the other the Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination could not be notified after 2016 i.e., up to the advertisement published on 26.02.2020 being Advertisement No. 01/2020 clubbing together the vacancies of the year 2017, 2018 and 2019 fixing the cut-off date for calculating upper age limit as 01.08.2011 but the process of selection could not proceed as in the meanwhile, the State Government came out with a new Rule in the year 2021 in exercise of power conferred under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Rules, 2021 does not contain any provision of relaxation in the age as has also not been provided under the earlier Rule of the year 1951. The State Government has come up with a resolution on 05.02.2021 whereby and whereunder the relaxation in the age has been decided to be given fixing it for maximum age as on 01.08.2016 and for minimum age as on 01.03.2021. Thereafter, the earlier advertisement was cancelled and a new advertisement has been published being Advertisement No. 01/2021 inviting online applications by merging the vacancies of the year 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 and in pursuance to the resolution dated 05.02.2021 the cut-off date for the maximum age has been fixed as 01.08.2016 and the minimum age as 01.03.2021.
46. The plea taken by the State of Jharkhand in the counter affidavit is that the relaxation of five years has been given by enhancing it from 35 years to 39 years 8 months years so far as it relates to unreserved category candidates and likewise, 41 years and 8 months for Extremely Backward Classes (Annexure-I)/Backward Classes (AnnexurE-1l), 42 years 8 months so far as it relates to Female (Unreserved/Extremely Classes (Annexure-. I)/Backward Classes (AnnexurE-1l), 44 years 8 months for Scheduled Tribes/Scheduled Castes (Male and Female) and 39 years 8 months so far as it relates to Economically Weaker Section.
xx xx xx Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 11
54. Further, we have also considered the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Smt. AnandKanwar (supra). The relevant passage therefrom is extracted and quoted as hereunder:--
"3. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error bordering on perversity in issuing the mandamus on the reasoning quoted above. It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate has to be determined on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement in response to which the candidate applies. There is nothing on the record to show that the State Government was in any manner negligent or at fault in not making the direct recruitment during the period 1983-89. Be that as it may, the High Court was not justified in taking the clock back to the period when unfilled vacancies were existing and holding that since the respondent was eligible on the date when vacancies fell vacant, she continues to be so till the time the vacancies are filled. Due to inaction on the part of the State Government in not filling the posts year-wise, the respondent cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being over-aged."
xx xx xx
56. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners, however, has tried to impress upon the Court by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in The State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Ramakrishna Rao (supra) but we, after going through the factual aspect involved therein, have found that the fact involved in the aforesaid case was quite different to that of the fact involved in this case. In the said case, advertisement was issued for filling up 60 vacancies on the basis of unamended Rule i.e. unamended Rule 5, but subsequently Rule 5 was amended and in the meanwhile the vacancies increased to 200 and, therefore, the Commission decided to hold a fresh examination under the amended Rule 5 but the High Court turned down this proposal and directed the Commission to hold a separate examination for those who had applied in 1968 under the unamended Rule in respect of original 60 vacancies and to invite separate applications and hold a separate examination for remaining 140 vacancies.Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 12
57. The reason given for such a direction was that if the respondents were required to submit fresh applications and made to appear in the examination along with the rest of the applicants there would be violation of Article 16. But in the case inhand, the fact is otherwise as fresh advertisement has been issued clubbing the vacancies of the year 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 and no application form had ever been accepted from any of the candidate with respect to the earlier advertisement which was later on cancelled and which is admitted case of the parties. Hence the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of this case."
16. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Civil No.13860/2021ReenaKumari vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission decided on 22.09.2021 in the following manner:-
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, considering the fact that the last examination was conducted in the year 2016 and, thereafter, no further examination was conducted for 5 years, 5 years age relaxation has been given though as per the relevant rules applicable, as amended, the cut-off date to be 01.03.2021, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court."
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the reasoning of the respondents therein that when examination was not conducted for a period of 5 years since the previous advertisement, therefore, the relaxation for the period during which examination was not conducted has been granted in which no error can be found.
18. When juxtaposing the facts of the present case with the aforesaid case in Reena Kumari (supra), it is clear that the vacancies were notified Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 13 in the year 2016 but they were shelved without assigning any reason and therefore to the limited extent where the candidates were eligible to apply and participate as per the maximum age limit in the abandoned advertisement of 25.04.2016 should be held entitled to seek relaxation of age limit by 4 years in the advertisement Annexure P-3.
19. It is clearly contended at bar by counsel for both the parties that the examination has since been held and the candidates have been appointed, but in WP No.7154 of 2022 the candidates have appeared in the examination in terms of interim order dated 01.04.20222 and their result have been kept in sealed cover. All other petitioners have not appeared in the examination.
20. Looking to the aforesaid factual situation, it is directed that the respondents shall declare the results of those petitioners in WP No.7154 of 2022, who were below 45 years of age as on 01.01.2016, which was the relevant date for advertisement dated 25.05.2016, and had also applied in the 2016 selection. The respondents shall not be under obligation to declare results of those petitioners in WP No.7154 of 2022, who were above 45 years of age as on 01.01.2016, and/or did not apply in the 2016 process.
21. So far as other petitions are concerned, as these petitioners have not even appeared in the examination pursuant to 2020 process, therefore, issuing any direction for them to appear in any fresh examination now Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM 14 when they are nearing 52 to 55 years of age, would only lead to utter chaos at this stage and may affect the rights of selected candidates. Therefore, these petitions are dismissed.
22. Resultantly, with the aforesaid directions, WP No.7154 of 2022 stands partly allowed while other petitions are dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 12:50:47 PM