In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the state government to pay a cost of Rs 50,000 for unnecessarily delaying a plea challenging the government’s circulars to withhold 13% of appointments. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Raj Mohan Singh and Justice Devnarayan Mishra, censured the state for its failure to file a reply upon receipt of notice in the matter.
Background of the Case
The case, titled Pragya Sharma & Others v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (WP No. 5596 of 2024), involves petitioners from the Unreserved Category who participated in the 2019 Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) Exams. The petitioners sought a mandamus to negate the state circulars that provided for withholding 13% of vacancies and creating two separate lists for the OBC and unreserved categories. For the years 2019 and 2020, the final select lists for 87% of vacancies had already been issued by the state government.
The petitioners argued that the state should release the results for the remaining 13% vacancies from the unreserved category candidates’ merit list, adhering to the existing 14% OBC reservation rule. They also sought a provisional declaration of results for the withheld 13% vacancies from the unreserved list, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Withholding of 13% Appointments: The primary legal issue was the validity of the state government’s circulars that withheld 13% of appointments and created separate lists for OBC and unreserved categories.
2. OBC Reservation Enhancement: The case also touched upon the broader issue of the enhancement of OBC reservation from 14% to 27%, which was pending adjudication in other writ petitions.
3. Delay in Filing Response: The court criticized the state for its delay in filing a response, which unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.
Court’s Decision
The court’s decision was scathing in its criticism of the state government’s conduct. The bench noted that the state had failed to comply with an earlier order dated April 4, 2024, which directed the state to disclose the names and merit rankings of students in the separate lists maintained by MPPSC for the withheld 13% of vacancies.
Justice Raj Mohan Singh, writing for the bench, stated:
“It is made clear that the respondent/State may recover the amount of cost after fixing the responsibility on some erring officer who has derelicted in not complying with the order in time.” The court lamented the state’s ‘pathetic attitude’ and ordered the state to pay Rs 50,000 to the M.P. High Court Legal Service Authority, Jabalpur, by July 31, 2024.
Important Observations
The court made several important observations:
– “The merit ranking of petitioners be also disclosed… Return should also disclose in specific terms as to whether any candidate securing lower merit ranking than the petitioners has been appointed to fill up 87% vacancies.”
– The bench emphasized that the state’s approach had caused unnecessary harassment to the petitioners, who were forced to approach the court due to the state’s inaction.
Also Read
Representation
Advocate Anshuman Singh appeared for the petitioners, while Government Advocate Darshan Soni represented the state.
