Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rani Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 November, 2025
1 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025
RANI BAI
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kaushlendra Singh Tomar Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
Advocate General/State.
Shri Narottam Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
Reserved for orders on :- 10/11/2025
Order delivered on :- 14/11/2025
ORDER
(Delivered on this day of 14th November, 2025)
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition was earlier filed as M.P. No. 2450/2021 and vide order dated 15/05/2025, it was permitted to be converted as writ petition which has been registered as W.P. No. 19357/2025.
3. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20/07/2021 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 2 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 Division, Morena, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 27/01/2020 passed by the Collector, District Bhind setting aside the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Sahayaka, Anganwadi Kendra Mehanda was rejected and the respondent No. 4 was directed to be appointed on the said post. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 27/01/2020 passed by the Collector, District Bhind.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that pursuant to the recruitment process initiated for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Sahayaka, Anganwadi Kendra Mehanda, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 submitted their applications. The last date for submission of the application form was 30/08/2016. On due consideration of application filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, the petitioner was granted 45.35 marks, whereas, the respondent No. 4 was granted 61 marks. The petitioner submitted her objection as regards non- grant of 10 marks under BPL category claiming herself to be belonging to the BPL category and also non-grant of 10 marks for belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. The claim of the petitioner was considered and allowed by the committee and she having been found to be entitled for grant of total 65 marks was selected and vide order dated 30/05/2018 she was appointed as Anganwadi Sahayaka, Anganwadi Kendra, Mehanda.
5. The appointment of the petitioner was challenged by the respondent No. 4 in an appeal before the Collector, District Bhind, wherein, it was contended that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 3 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 petitioner has been wrongly granted 10 marks under BPL category and also wrongly granted 10 marks under Scheduled Caste category as Scheduled Caste certificate produced by the petitioner along with her application form was issued from the State of Uttar Pradesh and in view of the instructions issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner was not entitled to claim the benefit of Scheduled Caste category reservation in State of M.P. on the basis of the said caste certificate.
6. The appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4 came to be allowed by the Collector, District Bhind vide order dated 27/01/2020 on the ground that on the strength of Scheduled Caste certificate issued in the State of Uttar Pradesh is not entitled for the benefit of caste certificate reservation in the State of M.P. Accordingly, by withdrawal of the 10 marks, petitioner's total marks was ascertained as 55.35, whereas, the respondent No. 4 was found to be more meritorious by obtaining 61 marks. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 was directed to be appointed on the post in question by cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.
7. The order dated 27/01/2020 passed in the appeal by the Collector, District Bhind was thereafter challenged in the second appeal before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena by the petitioner primarily on the ground that though the respondent No. 4 has been granted benefit of reservation and has been granted 10 marks under SC category, but no caste certificate was furnished by her along with her application or prior to the cut off date i.e. 30/08/2016, on the contrary, caste certificates of her father and sister were produced. The second appeal preferred by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 4 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 petitioner came to be rejected vide order dated 20/07/2021, thus order dated 27/01/2020 & 20/07/2021 are under challenge in the instant writ petition.
8. It appears that during pendency of the instant writ petition, respondent No. 4 was granted appointment on the post in question, which was sought to be challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an application for amendment, but record indicates that the aforesaid amendment application was never pressed by the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena as well as Collector, District Bhind have failed to consider the material aspect that the respondent No. 4 was not entitled for grant of 10 marks under Scheduled Caste category for she belonging to the reserved category as no caste certificate was produced by the respondent No. 4 along with her application. He further submits that the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena has proceeded in the matter on errorneous premise that the respondent No. 4 had filed her own caste certificate along with her application, whereas, caste certificates of her sister and father were filed along with her application. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the interim order dated 16/06/2025 passed in the instant case submits that specific affidavit was called for by this Court from the State on the point as to whether her own caste certificate was filed by the respondent No. 4 along with her application and in response whereof affidavit has been filed by the OIC of the case which categorically states that though the resopndent No. 4 had filed her domicile certificate and her father's and sister's caste certificate along with her application, but Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 5 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 her own caste certificate was not filed with her application form. He further submits that on account of non-filing of the caste certificate along with her application form, the respondent No. 4 is not entitled for grant of 10 marks for SC category and in case her 10 marks are withdrawn the total marks obtained by her would come down to 51 marks, whereas, the petitioner as per the order dated 27/01/2020 passed by the Collector, District Bhind has secured 55.35 marks, thereby, she stands first in the merit position and her appointment has to be restored.
10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute findings of the Collector, District Bhind as recorded in the order dated 27/01/2020 that in view of the circular issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department dated 13/01/2014, the petitioner was not entitled for grant of 10 marks on the strength of caste certificate obtained by her from the State of Uttar Pradesh, he restricts his arguments on the point that the respondent No. 4 did not possessed requisite qualification of belonging to the Scheduled Caste category on the cut off date. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that admittedly respondent No. 4 has obtained the caste certificate on 19/07/2017 (Annexure R/3) i.e. after the cut off date. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in M.P. No. 18/2019 dated 07/01/2019 (Smt. Arti Parihar vs. Smt. Sunita & Ors.), wherein, co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that if caste certificate is not produced before the cut off date, the candidate is not entitled for grant of 10 marks for the same. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 6 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 Court in W.A.No. 1539/2023 (Nikhil Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.) decided on 12/08/2024 to contend that eligibiltiy condition are required to be fulfilled on the cut off date.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that though the respondent No. 4 had not produced her own caste certificate along with her application, but the same has been filed by her along with return as Annexure R/3 as she could obtain the same subsequently. However, the fact remains that the respondent No. 4 belongs to the Scheduled Caste category since her birth and to substantiate her claim she has filed caste certificates of her father and sister. The caste status not is the eligibility qualification which is required to be possessed on the cut off date. The caste status is possessed by the candidate by birth. The caste certificate is only affirmation of the said fact. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and others reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779. Accordingly, he submits that no illegality has been committed by the authority by cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and directing appointment of the respondent No. 4 on the post in question.
12. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
13. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 7 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025
"The issue which arises for consideration by this Court is as to whether the respondent No. 4 was entitled for grant of 10 marks under Scheduled Caste category even if she could not produce the Scheduled Caste category certificate on the cut off date, but she has obtained the same subsequently?"
14. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 does not belong to the Scheduled Caste category. The only contention which has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 failed to produce her Scheduled Caste category certificate before cut off date and the same has been obtained by her subsequently, for which, she is not entitled for the benefit of reservation under the Scheduled Caste category. The similar issue arising for consideration in the instant writ petition has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3404/2022 (Satish Urao vs. High Court of M.P. & Anr.) decided vide judgment dated 22/03/2022.
15. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment read as under :-
"5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that he belongs to Orao tribe which is undisputably a recognized scheduled tribe in both the States i.e. the State of Chhattisgarh as well as State of Madhya Pradesh even upon per-organization of the State in the year 2000. The counsel further submitted that he is Orao by tribe by birth and, this fact is evident from the perusal of his domicile certificate and therefore, while relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and another, 2016 (4) SCC 754 submits that non- submission of the tribe certificate within the cut off date, which rendered the petitioner to be ineligible amounts to denial of equality of opportunity as contemplated under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 8 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 Constitution of India and therefore, while placing reliance upon the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), the counsel submits that the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Pushpa Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281, which was referred by the Apex Court in the decision of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) clearly held that the object of providing reservation to the SC/ST and educationally socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment thus, the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents was bad.
6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents while placing upon the reliance on Bhagyashree Syed Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2018 (4) MPLJ 710, Sudhanshu Jadia Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 13963/2019 decided on 5/04/2021 and also the order dated 3/09/2021 passed in W.A. No. 750/2021 (Ranu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Praesh) as well as the order dated 10/11/2021 passed in W.P. No. 24224/2021 (Lalita Swarnkar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) submitted that if a candidate acquires ineligible criteria after the cut off date, his candidature is not required to be considered. Accordingly, counsel for the respondents submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties.
8. The question which is involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). The Apex Court categorically held in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 as under :-
"16. In Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , relevant paragraphs from Tej Pal Singh [Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092 : ILR (2000) 1 Del 298] have also been extracted, which read thus: (Pushpa case [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , SCC OnLine Del para 11) "11. ... '15. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11-6-1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including SC category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for SC category, the requirement is that a person should belong to SC category. If a person is SC he is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 9 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 to SC category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to SC category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to SC category prior to 30-6-1998 or that acquired the status of being SC only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30-6-1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.
16. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the fundamental rights and directive principles of the Constitution, in particular Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful.' (Tej Pal Singh case [Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092 : ILR (2000) 1 Del 298] , SCC OnLine Del paras 15-16)"
17. Further, in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , relevant portion from the judgment of Valsamma Paul case [Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 :
1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713] has also been extracted, which reads as under: (Pushpa case [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , SCC OnLine Del para 11) "11. ... '17. ... "21. The Constitution through its Preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles created a secular State based on the principle of equality and non-discrimination, striking a balance between the rights of the individuals and the duty and commitment of the State to establish an egalitarian social order."
(Valsamma Paul case [Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713] , SCC pp. 560- 61, para 21)' (Tej Pal Singh case [Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092 : ILR (2000) 1 Del 298] , SCC OnLine Del para 17)"
18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 10 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 referred to supra. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] and Valsamma Paul [Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713] wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the directive principles of State policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39- A of the directive principles of State policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 :
1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] and Valsamma Paul [Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713] . Therefore, the impugned judgment and order [Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Ram Kumar Gijroya, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 472 : (2012) 128 DRJ 124] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated 24-11-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), WP (C) No. 382 of 2009, order dated 24-11-2010 (Del)] is hereby restored.
9. The Apex Court, thus, while taking note of the Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the Constitution of India, categorically held that the non-submission of a caste/tribe certificate does not render a candidate ineligible if the certificates are submitted even after the cut off date.
10. In the present case, the petitioner submitted the tribe certificate which was issued by the State of Chhattisgarh alongwith the application and, even submitted the tribe certificate issued by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 11 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 State of Madhya Pradesh dated 14/01/2022 which was submitted prior to the verification of the document on 17/01/2022 therefore, the certificate so produced by the petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration and, thus, the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected merely on the ground that on the cut off date the petitioner did not have the eligibility criteria of having a scheduled tribe certificate duly issued by authorities of State of Madhya Pradesh. So far as the reliance which is placed upon by the counsel for the respondents on the decision of Bhagyashree Syed (supra), that was a case where the disqualification was pertaining to having more than two children and, it was held that the candidature of the petitioner in that case was cancelled on the ground of disqualification therefore, the case of Bhagyashree Syed (supra) has no applicability. Simultaneously, the order dated 10/11/2021 passed in W.P. No. 24224/2021 also does not relate to the eligibility criteria pertaining to submission of a caste/tribe certificate. On the contrary, the issue in the said case was to the effect that a candidate upon his migration to another State, does not seek employment on the strength of caste certificate of his original State and, the said decision is based on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Actioin Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Union of India and another reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244 however, this order has no applicability as regard the facts of this case.
11. The decision which has been further relied upon by the respondents i.e. order dated 5/04/2021 passed in W.P. No. 13963/2019, that was a case where the eligibility of submission of computer certificate was in question and therefore, the court held that the petitioner involved disputed question of fact and such question could not have been adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and thus, the co-ordinate bench declined to interfere with the matter thus, the said order has no nexus with the dispute in hand at the present case.
12. Lastly, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment dated 3/09/2021 delivered in W.A. No. 750/2021. In the aforesaid judgment the issue was submission of caste certificate at the time of applying for the post of Anganwadi Worker and, the facts of the case reveled that in said case the caste certificate was sought to be submitted after the date of submission of the application form. Thus, the coordinate bench while placing reliance upon the case of Draupati Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2013 (2) MPLJ 407 held that the eligibility conditions are required to be fulfilled on the cut off date and the acquisition of eligibility condition after the cut off date is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 12 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 impermissible. However, the perusal of the judgment dated 3/09/2021 delivered in W.A. No. 750/2021 reveals that the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) was not taken into consideration in the aforesaid judgment and nor even referred by any of the parties therefore, in the aforesaid judgment of Ranu Singh (supra) the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) was not taken note of and thus, apparently the question with regard to the submission of a caste/tribe certificate even after the cut off date is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra).
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid analysis, we have no hesitation to quash the impuned order dated 4/02/2022 contained in Annexure P/1 and accordingly, the same stands quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's candidature on the basis of caste certificate dated 14/01/2022 submitted by the petitioner and accordingly consider the case of petitioner for appointment against the post of Peon/Waterman/Chowkidar.
14. Accordingly, petition stands allowed. No order as to costs."
16. The perusal of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Urao (supra) indicates that by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754, the Division Bench has not only held that the caste certificate can be submitted even after cut off date, but it has also distinguished the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 750/2021 (Ranu Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) delivered on 03/09/2021 on the ground that the same was passed in ignorance to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra).
17. In view of the aforesaid authorative pronouncement of the issue in question by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM 13 WRIT PETITION No. 19357 of 2025 respondent No. 4 has been rightly extended the benefit of reservation under the Scheduled Caste category and granted 10 marks for she belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, even though, she has failed to submit her caste certificate prior to cut off date.
18. In view of the above consideration and discussions, the instant writ petition being devoid of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
19. All interlocutory applications / order, if any, stand disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Durgekar* Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/14/2025 6:55:58 PM