Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Chand Tyagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21706
1 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 20th OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5735 of 2024
PRAKASH CHAND TYAGI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sarwesh Singh Chauhan - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent
No.4.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief(s):-
“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed;
(ii) That, the order dated 13.2.2024 Annexure P/1, passed by the
respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to be quashed and the
respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the
post of Staff Nurse with all consequential benefits.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21706
2 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon’ble
Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be
also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by order dated 13.2.2024,
respondent No. 3 denied appointment to petitioner on the post of Staff Nurse
merely on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the Life Registration
Certificate of the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council within time. It is
further submitted that the petitioner submitted the registration certificate on
10.3.2023 and that the aforesaid certificate was issued on 7.3.2023. It is also
submitted that a similar relaxation has already been granted by the respondents
vide order dated 2.9.2022.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the last date for
submission of the application form was 28.10.2022 and as per the advertisement,
it was mentioned that the candidate must possess a Life Registration Certificate
of the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council as a minimum qualification.
It is submitted that it is a settled position of law that the cut-off date cannot be
extended and admittedly, on the cut-off date, the petitioner did not possess the
Life Registration Certificate of the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council.
Learned counsel for the respondents further places reliance upon the judgment
passed in W.A. No. 2324/2023, Jainarayan Kushwah Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is settled position that if cut-off date is not prescribed, then the last date
of submission of form is cut-off date as per judgement dated 8.3.2011 passed in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21706
3 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
W.P. No. 2871/2010 (Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar v. State of M.P.) relevant para
of which is quoted herein below:-
“11.Accordingly, we hold and answer the question
referred to us by holding that the circular dated
27.7.2009 and 26.08.2009 do not extend the cut-off date
for acquiring eligibility or educational qualification upto
30th of November, 2009, it only applies to such of the
candidates who already acquired the qualification prior
to 7.7.2008 who had submitted the degree certificates or
diploma certificates issued by a particular institute. The
circular only permits such candidates to submit the
degree diploma certificates issued under the seal and
signature of the university on or before 30th of
November, 2009.”
6. Further, Relevant para in the case of Sanjay Datt Dubey v. State of M.P.
and Ors. 2022 (1) MPLJ 105 is quoted herein below:-
“25. As private respondents did not have educational
qualification prescribed in Patwari Examination 2008
on cutoff date i.e. on 7-7-2008 therefore, their
appointment is bad in law. Respondent No.1 is directed
to take action in case of private respondents in W.P No.
10216/2012 and W.P No. 1293/2013 accordingly.”
7. The Division Bench of this Court has also held, vide judgment dated
17.04.2017 passed in W.A. No. 207/2017 (Ravi Soni v. State of M.P.), as under:-
“In view of the decision of Division Bench rendered in
the case of Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar & others Vs State
of M.P & others passed in WP No. 2871/2010 (s) dated
08/03/2011 the issue involved herein is no more res-
integra.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that other
equally situated candidates who acquired qualificationSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:217064 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
subsequent to the cut-off date were given benefit by
Annexure P-4, Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6. The
appellant is thus seeking negative parity which is de-
horse the constitutional scheme. If a benefit has been
wrongly extended by the State then the same can not be
repeated by judicial interference on the anvil of similar
treatment. Article 14/16 of Constitution of India do not
recognize negative parity as a good ground. This court
is bolstered in its view by the Apex Court decision in the
case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh
reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 wherein the Apex Court
held thus:-” by now it is settled that the guarantee of
equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive
concept and it can not be enforced by a citizen or court
in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has
been committed in favor of any individual or a group of
individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a
judicial forum, other can not invoke the jurisdiction of
the higher or superior court for repeating or
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for
passing wrong order Chandigarh Admn. V Jagjit Singh,
Jaipur Development Authority V Daulat Mal Jain,
Union of India Vs J.V. Subhaiah, Gurusharan Singh V.
NDMC, State of Haryana V. Ram Kumar Mann,
Faridabad CT. Scan Centre V. D.G. Health Services,
Style (Dress Land) V. UT, Chandigarh, State of Bihar V
Kameshar Prasad Singh, Union of India V.
International Trading Co. and Directorate of Film
Festival V. Gaurav Ashwin Jain“. And the same dictum
has been followed in the case of State of Bihar and
others Vs Chadreshwar Pathak, (2014) 13 SCC 232.”
8. The law with respect to the fact that a candidate should have all the
required qualification on the cut off date is no more res intergra. The
Hon Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar Misra
reported in 2017 (11) SCC 521 has held as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21706
5 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
“6. The position is fairly well settled that when a set of
eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules
and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed
qualification for the post at the time of submission of
application or by the cut off date, if any, described
under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not
eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to
note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no
power was vested in any authority to make any
relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for
the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not
come within the zone of consideration for the post could
not be compared with a candidate who possess the
prescribed qualifications and was considered and
appointed to the post. Therefore, the so-called
confession made by the officer in the Court that persons
haying lower merit than the respondent have been
appointed as SDI (Basic), having been based on
misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned single
Judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for
issuing the direction for appointment of the respondent.
The Division Bench was equally in error in confirming
the judgment of the learned single Judge. Thus the
judgment of the learned single Judge as confirmed by
the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set
aside.”
9. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and
others vs. Chander Shekhar and another, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 has held
as under:
“6……. The proposition that where applications are
called for prescribing a particular date as the last date
for fling the applications, the eligibility of the
candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that
date and that dat e alone, is a well-established one. A
person who acquires the prescribed qualificationSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:217066 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be
considered at all. An advertisement or notification
issued/published calling for applications constitutes a
representation to the public and the authority issuing it
is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary
to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it
were known that persons who obtained the
qualifications after the prescribed date but before the
date of interview would be allowed to appear for the
interview, other similiarly placed persons could also
have applied. Just because some of the persons had
applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the
prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they
could not have been treated on a preferential basis.
Their application ought to have been rejected at the
inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in
fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority
Judgement. This is also the proposition affirmed in
Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and
others [1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168]. The reasoning in
majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to
appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was
able to get the bests talent available and that such
course was in furtherence of public interest is, with
respect, an impermissible Justification It is, in our
considered opinion, a clear error of low and an error
apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M.
Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court)
was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not
have allowed to appear for interview.”
10. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar K. Mandal and
others vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 519 has held as
under:
“What happens when a cut off date is fixed for fulfilling
the prescribed qualification relating to age by aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:217067 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
candidate for appointment and the effect of any non-
prescription has been considered by this Court in
several cases. The principles culled out from the
decisions of this Court are as follows:
(1) The cut off date by reference to which the eligibility
requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a
public employment is the date appointed by the relevant
service rules; (2) If there is no cut off date appointed by
the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the
purpose in the advertisement calling for applications;
and (3) If there is no such date appointed then the
eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the
last date appointed by which the applications were to be
received by the competent authority.”
11. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh and
others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262 has held as
under:-
“14. In view of several decisions of this Court relied on
by the High Court and referred to herein above, it was
expected of the State Government notifying the
vacancies to have clearly laid down and stated the cut
off date by reference to which the applicants were
required to satisfy their eligibility. This was not done. It
was pointed out on behalf of the several
appellants/petitioners before this Court that the practice
prevalent in Punjab has been to determine the eligibility
by reference to the date of interview and there are
innumerable cases wherein such candidates have been
seeking employment as were not eligible on the date of
making the applications or the last date appointed for
receipt of the applications but were in the process of
acquiring eligibility qualifications and did acquire the
same by the time they were called for and appeared at
the interview. Several such persons have been appointedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:217068 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
but no one has challenged their appointments and they
have continued to be in public employment. Such a
loose practice, though prevalent, cannot be allowed to
be continued and must be treated to have been put to an
end. The reason is apparent. The applications made by
such candidates as were not qualified but were in the
process of acquiring eligibility qualifications would be
difficult to be scrutinised and subjected to the process of
approval or elimination and would only result in
creating confusion and uncertainty. Many would be
such applicants who would be called to face interview
but shall have to be returned blank if they failed to
acquire requisite eligibility qualifications by the time of
interview. In our opinion the authorities of the State
should be tied down to the principles governing the cut
off date for testing the eligibility qualifications on the
principles deducible from decided cases of this Court
and stated herein above which have now to be treated
as the settled service jurisprudence.”
12. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat and others
vs. Arvind kumar T. Tiwari and another, reported in AIR 2012 SC 3281 has held
as under:-
“11. A person who does not possess the requisite
qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the
reason that his appointment would be contrary to the
statutory rules is, and would therefore, be void in law.
Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any
stage and appointing such a person would amount to
serious illegibility and not mere irregularity. Such a
person cannot approach the court for any relief for the
reason that he does not have a right which can be
enforced through court.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21706
9 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
13. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. U.P.
Secondary Education Services Commission and others, reported in AIR 2008
SC 1817 has held as under:
“19. If the essential educational qualification for
recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same
cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An
appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory
rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be
regularized, particularly, when the statute in no
unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be.
24. A departmental proceeding against the appellant
might have been initiated after the change of
management. We will also assume that the said
proceeding was initiated after the contempt proceeding
was initiated. Appellant, however, has filed a writ
application for issuance of or in the nature of a writ of
mandamus. He, therefore, must establish existence of a
legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in
the State. If he did not possess the requisite qualification
to hold a post, he could not have any legal right to
continue. It was, therefore, immaterial as to why and
when the said proceeding had been initiated against
him.”
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Dipitimayee Parida vs. State of Orissa
And Others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 687 has held as under:-
“16. Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra
qualification laid down for the recruitment should be
considered as on the last date for filing of the
application. This has been so held in Rekha Chaturvedi
v. University of Rajasthan stating: (SCC p. 175, para
10)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2170610 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
“10. The contention that the required qualifications of
the candidates should be examined with reference to the
date of selection and not with reference to the last date
for making applications has only to be stated to be
rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In
the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates
who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether
they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they
are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the
advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to
which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the
said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be
possible for the candidates who do not possess the
requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make
applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date
may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those
candidates who do not have the qualifications in
praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain
future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the
number of applications. But a still worse consequence
may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for
malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or
manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject
others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date
indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting
applications with reference to which the requisite
qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for
the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for
making the applications. We have, therefore, no
hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee
in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup,
took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on
the date of selection rather than on the last date of
preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality,
and on this ground itself the selections in question are
liable to be quashed.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21706
11 WP. No. 5735 of 2024
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of
India and others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 has held as under:-
16.Indisputably, the appellant herein did not hold the
requisite qualification as on the said cut-off date. He was,
therefore, not eligible therefor.
16. It is a settled position that the minimum qualification must be acquired by
the cut-off date, i.e., the last date for submission of the application form. In the
present case, the last date for submission of the application form was 28.10.2022.
The petitioner acquired the Life Registration Certificate of the Madhya Pradesh
Nurses Registration Council on 7.3.2023, i.e., after the cut-off date.
17. Considering the aforesaid, as the petitioner did not possess the minimum
qualification on the last date for submission of the application form, his
candidature cannot be considered and he cannot be treated as eligible for
appointment.
18. Accordingly, the present petition being sans merits is hereby dismissed.
19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/21/2026
6:52:38 PM
