Case Summary: Anusuchit Jati, Evam Jan Jati Adhikari Karmachari Sangh (Ajjakas) v. MP High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Citation: Writ Petition No. 32834 of 2024
Order Date: 21.11.2024
Coram: Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Justice Vivek Jain
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Rameshwar Singh Thakur, Vinayak Prasad Shah

Brief Facts:

The petitioner challenged the recruitment process for the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services conducted by the High Court’s Examination Cell. The contention was that meritorious reserved category candidates were not given the benefit of migration to the unreserved category at all stages, particularly during the preliminary examination. This was claimed to violate the constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

The petitioner argued that candidates who scored equal to or higher than unreserved category candidates should have been considered for migration at every stage of the recruitment process, including the preliminary examination. The petitioner sought directions to apply migration benefits from the first stage itself, in line with the Kishore Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh decision, which emphasized that such benefits should not be confined to the final stage.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that migration benefits should apply to meritorious reserved category candidates at each stage of the selection process, including the preliminary examination. They argued that restricting this benefit to the final stage is discriminatory and undermines the constitutional provisions of equality.

The petitioner relied on the Kishore Choudhary judgment, which suggested that migration benefits should not be limited to the final stage of the recruitment process. The petitioner further emphasized that the failure to implement migration benefits at the preliminary stage was a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondents defended the current recruitment process, relying on the Pushpendra Kumar Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh case, where the Court had ruled against extending migration benefits at the preliminary stage. The respondents argued that merit is not fully evaluated at the preliminary stage, and thus, migration at this phase could distort the recruitment process.

They contended that extending migration benefits during the preliminary examination would create imbalance in the system and could potentially erode the purpose of reserved categories. Additionally, they asserted that changes to the recruitment process should be prospective and not affect ongoing recruitment.

Observations of the Court:

The High Court analyzed the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16, emphasizing that merit should prevail throughout all stages of recruitment. The Court referred to the Deependra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh case, where the Supreme Court had stressed that meritorious candidates from reserved categories must be allowed to compete on equal terms, including during the preliminary examination.

The Court criticized the interpretation of Pushpendra Kumar Patel, which confined migration benefits to the final stages of selection. It noted that this approach failed to recognize the overriding importance of merit and equal opportunity, as enshrined in the Constitution. The Court stated that restricting migration benefits to later stages undermines the objectives of fairness and equality, which are fundamental to the recruitment process.

The Court clarified that all future recruitment processes conducted by the Examination Cell must ensure that meritorious reserved category candidates are considered for migration at all stages, including the preliminary examination. However, it made it clear that this directive would not apply to ongoing recruitment processes where examinations had already been conducted.

Court’s Decision:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the High Court Examination Cell to extend the benefit of migration to meritorious reserved category candidates at every stage of the recruitment process. The Court reinforced the principle that merit should be the guiding factor in recruitment, and any procedural restrictions that hinder equal competition must be removed.

Significance of the Case:

This decision is a significant step toward ensuring that merit prevails over procedural barriers in recruitment processes, especially in government services. It reaffirms the constitutional guarantee of equality and fairness in public employment, as mandated by Articles 14 and 16. The judgment clarifies the importance of treating meritorious candidates from reserved categories equally and providing them opportunities to compete on an equal footing at every stage of recruitment.

Stay tuned for live updates on the rupee’s movement and real-time business news on Kanishk Social Media—your go-to source for comprehensive stock market and legal news.