Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Bhagat vs Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi ... on 15 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67656
1 WP-27244-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27244 of 2024
GAURAV BHAGAT AND OTHERS
Versus
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chauhan - Advocate through Video Conferening for the
petitioner.
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent University to appointment order in favour of the petitioners for the Group-4 post of Stenographer and Stenotypist in the interest of justice.
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to consider and decide the pending representation vide annexure P/4 in the interest of justice.
iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that M.P. Employees Selection Board, Bhopal has issued advertisement for group IV recruitment to the post of AG III, Steno-typist, Stenographer and other posts by conducting Combined Recruitment Test, 2023. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners submitted online application forms for the posts of Group 4 and participated in the Group 4 recruitment test and qualified in the said exam. The respondent University issued notice to the petitioners on 12.3.2024, annexure Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/6/2026 2:26:14 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67656 2 WP-27244-2024 P/3, for verification of the documents as their names appeared in the merit list. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioners participated in the process of verification of documents on 15.3.2024 and the same were verified by the authorities concerned and the petitioners got selected for appointment on the post of Stenographer and Stenotypists, however, till date appointment orders have not been issued, hence this petition. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners belong to different categories which is mentioned hereinbelow :-
Name of the candidates Total marks Category
Gaurav Bhagat 60.02 ST/Nil/Open
Rajeshwari Patel 77.14 OBC/Nil/Female
Ganesh Prasad Dhurwey 62.96 ST/Nil/Open
Parmal Milan 75.85 SC/Nil/Open
Rohit Vishwakarma 77.14 OBC/Nil/Open
Rakhi Meshram 58.21 ST/Nil/Female
Prince Sahu 76.49 OBC/Nil/Open
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners stood in the merit and appointed and filed documents of their mark sheet as annexure P/2 in different categories in the respondent University. It is further submitted that despite the petitioners have obtained higher marks in the merit list, the petitioners have not been granted appointment and, therefore, on the basis prayed that in the Rule Book at serial No.47 (at page 35), list of backlog vacant posts have been mentioned according to which in Post Code No.161 'Sheeghra Lekhak Shreni 3' (Stenographer Grade III), backlog is reserved for ST candidate but despite the petitioner No.1 being ST candidate and stood 1st in the merit, the petitioner has not been appointed. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court vide order dated 3.5.2017 in W.P.No.15668/2017 Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/6/2026 2:26:14 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67656 3 WP-27244-2024 has allowed the petition filed by one of the candidates, who has been denied appointment on the ground that selection list has been expired and there is no vacant post available in the UR category and thus, on the basis of aforesaid, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner.
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Rule 2 of the Rule Book which has been filed as annexure P-1, provides that in the merit list only qualified candidates would be empanelled and those candidates who will not claim as of right to be appointed against the posts they have applied, unless the appointment order has been issued in favour of the said candidates. It is further submitted that it is not in dispute that in serial No.47 of the Rule Book for Post Code 161, advertisement for the post of 'Sheeghra Lekhak Shreni 3' in ST category was issued but, because of misconduct of the employees of the University against whom enquiry has been initiated. For which certain documents along with the return have been filed to demonstrate that the letter has been issued to the Employees Selection Board to cancel the advertisement as well as the departmental enquiry has been initiated against the delinquent employee. Thus, because of the misconduct and mistake committed by the University, the petitioners could not have been given appointment. It is further submitted that there was no post available for backlog category and only fresh vacant post are available in the unreserved category. It is further submitted that only because petitioners have been selected in the merit list, the petitioners have no vested right to be appointed on the post. On the basis, prayed for Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/6/2026 2:26:14 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67656 4 WP-27244-2024 dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted that by way of advertisement annexure P-1, the respondents have advertised posts for 'Shreeghra Lekhak Shreni 3' for backlog post of UR category. The petitioners have applied for the posts and secured the merit position. It is further found that the despite of representations submitted by the petitioners, the grievance of the petitioners have not been redressed. However, reply has been submitted by the respondent University to state that such backlog posts in unreserved category were not available. Some employees of the Respondent University have committed misconduct of sending such information for advertisement of said post, therefore, departmental enquiry has been initiated and letters have been written to the State to cancel the advertisement for that category and the enquiry is still pending. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma and others, (2006) 3 SCC 330, has held as under :-
"14. Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the candidates concerned cannot claim that they have been given a hostile discrimination. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 :
(1991) 17 ATC 95 : AIR 1991 SC 1612] ; Asha Kaul v. State of J&K [(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 : (1993) 24 ATC 576] ; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal [(1996) 2 SCC 168 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 438 : (1996) 32 ATC 668 : AIR 1996 SC 2340] ; Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India [(1996) 10 SCC 742 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 364] ; Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar [(1997) 3 SCC 198 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 775 : AIR 1997 SC 2280] ; Syndicate Bank v. Shankar Paul [(1997) 6 SCC 584 : AIR 1997 SC 3091] ; Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [(1997) 10 SCC 264 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1265] ; Punjab SEB v. Seema [1999 SCC (L&S) 629] ; All India Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/6/2026 2:26:14 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67656 5 WP-27244-2024 SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen [(2001) 6 SCC 380 :
AIR 2001 SC 1851] ; Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut [(2002) 4 SCC 726 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 606] ; S. Renuka v. State of A.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 195 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 689 : AIR 2002 SC 1523] and Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar [(2004) 9 SCC 100 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 715 : AIR 2003 SC 4248] .)
15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [(1996) 7 SCC 426 : AIR 1996 SC 540] ; Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35] ; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] ; Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G., Health Services [(1997) 7 SCC 752] ; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [(1999) 3 SCC 494 : AIR 1999 SC 1347] ; State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal [(1999) 9 SCC 240 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171] ; Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi [(2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] ; Union of India v. International Trading Co. [(2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. President, Indore Development Authority [(2006) 2 SCC 604 : JT (2006) 2 SC 259] .)
7. On the basis of above enunciation of law, it is clear that mere selection does not confer any right on the candidate to be appointed on the post, which is also corroborated with the rule 2 of Rulebook that the candidates selected under the select list shall not have any vested right to be appointed unless the appointment letter is issued in their favour.
8. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the posts which have been advertised were not available in the Respondent University, the petitioners cannot claim any right on the aforesaid posts unless the appointment order is issued. Mere selection does not create any right, as held by Hon. Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Sharma (supra). The coordinate bench of this Court while dealing with the issue of life of the selection list has held in that case that the selection list was not expired and Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/6/2026 2:26:14 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67656 6 WP-27244-2024 on submission of certain documents that the post for unreserved category is found to be vacant, the order was passed, but, in the present case in hand, as it is submitted on the basis of documents that post for unreserved category under backlog was not available then in no case the petitioners can be appointed under unreserved category for backlog posts. However, the petitioners would be at liberty that in case after enquiry it is found that such posts are vacant, the petitioners may pursue the same for their appointment.
9. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT) JUDGE HS Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/6/2026 2:26:14 PM