Jaidev Pathak & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Per: Pradeep Mittal, J. Since these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are being heard and decided by a common order. For the sake of convenience, references to the documents and annexures herein are made with reference to those filed in W.P. No. 29168 of 2026.

The petitioners have filed these petitions praying for the following reliefs:-

The brief facts leading to the filing of these petitions are that the petitioners, being Constables in the Police Department, participated in the Recruitment Examination-2025 for the Subedar/Sub-Inspector Cadre under the Police category without availing of relaxation and got more marks than unreserved candidates who were selected in the examination; however, they are entitled to consideration against the Unreserved/Open Category. The Rulebook dated 27.10.2025 contains provisions inconsistent with the said legal position. The petitioners had raised the discrepancies in the Rulebook before Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through their representation dated 17.06.2026; however, the same was not considered. More than 20 male police personnel who secured higher marks than the last selected Open-category candidates were retained in the Police Category. Such exclusion is contrary to Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542 and Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati, (2022) 12 SCC 401, which recognize the Unreserved/Open Category as an open merit pool available to candidates selected on merit without relaxation. Although Rules 10(xiii), 10(xiv) and 18(iii) contemplate selection based on merit, meritorious male police personnel were not considered against Open vacancies. The purported exclusion under Rule 10(xvi) on the ground of relaxation in the Physical Efficiency Test is also factually incorrect, as no such relaxation was granted to male police personnel under Appendix-3. Further, Rules 10(iii) and 18(iv), to the extent they restrict such consideration, are inconsistent with the settled law and liable to be declared arbitrary and illegal. The differential treatment of male and female police personnel and the preparation of the Result contrary to the merit-based requirement under Rule 18(i) further demonstrate arbitrary compartmentalization of candidates. Hence, the present petitions are being filed on the following, amongst other grounds.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that the present petitions are misconceived, untenable and liable to be dismissed, as the impugned Final Result has been prepared strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the applicable horizontal and vertical reservation framework. The petitioners have no vested right to claim adjustment against the Unreserved/Open Category merely based on higher marks, particularly where separate eligibility conditions, physical standards and horizontal reservation provisions apply to police personnel. Rules 10 and 18 expressly govern the manner of preparation of the merit and category-wise lists, and the respondents have acted within the scope of the said Rules. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable by the facts and applicable recruitment framework. The allegations of discrimination, arbitrariness and improper compartmentalization are therefore unfounded, and no interference with the Result is warranted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings, documents and annexures placed on record. The principal question for consideration is whether the petitioners being serving police personnel who participated under the Police horizontal category, were entitled to be migrated to the Unreserved/Open Category solely based on their inter se merit.

It is apposite to reproduce the relevant rules hereinbelow: -

The petitioners rely upon the Result dated 02.07.2026, published on 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-1), the Recruitment Rules & Instructions dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure P-2), and their representation dated 17.06.2026 (Annexure P-3). Their contention is that several male police personnel secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the Open Category but were retained in the Police Category against the principle laid down in Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542, Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati, (2022) 12 SCC 401 and Ramnaresh alias Rinku Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2058.

It is not in dispute that recruitment is governed by the Recruitment Rules & Instructions dated 27.10.2025. Rule 10(xvi), read with Rule 18(iv), specifically regulates the way police personnel are to be considered under the horizontal category. The said provisions constitute part of the governing recruitment framework and cannot be disregarded when examining the validity of the Result.

The petitioners seek to apply the general principle of migration to the present recruitment by contending that a candidate selected on merit and without relaxation must necessarily be migrated against the Open Category. However, the question of migration has to be examined in the context of the specific statutory recruitment scheme. The Police Category has been created as a distinct horizontal/service category for serving police personnel having particular service conditions and eligibility requirements. Therefore, mere comparison of marks, without examining the structure of the applicable Rules, cannot by itself establish illegality in the preparation of the Result.

It is well settled that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process and not with substituting the Court's view for the recruitment policy prescribed by the competent authority. Unless the applicable Rules are shown to be unconstitutional, arbitrary or applied in a patently illegal manner, interference with a concluded selection process is not warranted.

It is a well-settled principle of reservation law that reservations may broadly be classified as vertical and horizontal. Reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution are generally referred to as vertical reservations, whereas reservations in favour of categories such as women, persons with disabilities and other specified classes under Article 16(1) are ordinarily described as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations and are, therefore, often referred to as “interlocking reservations”. A candidate selected against a horizontal reservation is adjusted against the appropriate vertical category to which he or she belongs. Thus, if a candidate selected against a horizontal reservation belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, the candidate is adjusted against the Scheduled Caste quota; likewise, if the candidate belongs to the Open Competition category, the candidate is adjusted against the Open Competition quota. Such adjustment does not result in any enlargement of the prescribed percentage of vertical reservations.

The In-Service quota is not a vertical reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. Nor does its mere description as a horizontal category confer upon an in-service candidate and independent right to migrate into the Unreserved/Open Category. The quota is created and regulated by the applicable M.P Police Service Rules, and the selection has to be made in accordance with the specific methodology prescribed therein. Accordingly, the petitioners cannot claim migration against the Unreserved/Open Category solely on the basis of higher marks obtained by them in the selection process.

It is well settled that vertical reservations, such as those for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, operate differently from horizontal reservations, which cut across the vertical categories. In the case of a genuine horizontal reservation, a candidate selected on merit is migrated against the appropriate vertical category to which the candidate belongs, so that the prescribed percentage of vertical reservation remains unaffected. The principle of migration recognised in the decisions relied upon by the petitioners, including Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati and Ramnaresh alias Rinku Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, in the circumstances of the present case, is misplaced.

In the present case, however, the 15% allocation for in-service Police personnel stands on a distinct footing. The said quota is a specific allocation of posts for serving Police personnel under the applicable M.P. Police Service Rules, and the entitlement is confined to the extent of 15% of the posts prescribed for the said separated compartment. A candidate participating under the In-Service quota cannot claim migration to the Unreserved/Open Category on the grounds that he or she has secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the Open Category. Such migration would have the effect of enlarging the prescribed 15% allocation and would be contrary to the recruitment scheme. In-service quota does not be reserved under Article 16 of the Constitution; that quota is fixed under the M.P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 1997. Therefore, petitioners cannot claim as a horizontal reservation under vertical reservation of Unreserved/Open quota under Article 16 of the Constitution.

The Rules require the Police Personnel category to be worked out within the prescribed recruitment structure. Candidates belonging to the horizontal category who are available on merit are to be counted towards the prescribed percentage, while the way any remaining posts are to be dealt with is also specifically provided by the Rules. Thus, the 15% allocation cannot be enlarged indirectly by shifting meritorious in-service candidates to the Open Category. To permit such migration solely based on higher marks would effectively alter the source-wise allocation prescribed by the competent rule-making authority.

The general proposition is that a candidate belonging to a reserved category, who secures selection on his or her own merit without availing of any relaxation, may be migrated against the Open Category and cannot be mechanically extended to a candidate participating under (travelling in a different compartment) a distinct source-specific In-Service quota. The right of such candidate must necessarily be determined with reference to the Rules under which the recruitment is made. Comparative merit, by itself, cannot override the express allocation and selection methodology prescribed by those Rules.

The petitioners have also failed to establish that Rules 10(xvi) and 18(iv), or the allied provisions of the Recruitment Rules and Instructions dated 27.10.2025, are unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary or contrary to any statutory provision. The alleged difference between the Open Category cut-off and the Police Personnel cut-off, or the assertion that certain Police personnel have secured higher marks than candidates selected in the Open Category, does not by itself establish any illegality in the selection process. Similarly, no violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution is made out in the absence of any demonstrated departure from the governing Rules.

As per the amendment in Rule 6(8)(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997, 15% seats for police constables in all categories for each vertical category, viz. Unreserved/Other Backward Classes/Scheduled Tribes/Scheduled Castes/Economically Weaker Section, are reserved. As per the amendment carried out in Rules 1997, those Rules have been amended in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The separate quota is allotted according to that rule for the police persons who are in service. However, that quota is a special quota under Article 309 of the Constitution, the rule framed for the service condition of the employee. Therefore, police service quota is a special compartment which cannot migrate to another reserved compartment.

The learned Government Advocate argued that the in-service police person is not entitled to compete with the Unreserved/Open Category; he was only entitled to 15% allotted seats for service quota under Rule 10(xvi) of the Rulebook 2025. Petitioners argued that petitioners do not get any relaxation in the Physical Efficiency Test; therefore, petitioners are entitled to compete with the Open Category candidate. Petitioners pointed out the relaxation guideline in which Physical Efficiency relaxation has only been given to Ex-serviceman candidates. No document on record shows that any relaxation has been given to in-service police servicemen. However, it is not on record that petitioners get any relaxation, but Rule 10(xvi) does make it clear that no permission has been given to in-service police servicemen to appear in the Open quota for the Sub-Inspector entrance exam; he is only permitted to appear against the promotion quota of 15%. It makes no difference whether the petitioners get any relaxation or not. Therefore, we are not impressed by the argument that the ground of rejection for migration in Open quota is factually incorrect. We are of the opinion that once the petitioners entered only against the 15% quota of in-service policemen, then he/she cannot compete in the Open Category.

We are of the considered view that the 15% In-Service/Police Personnel allocation is confined to the extent prescribed under the applicable M.P Executive Police Service (Non gazette) Rule 1976. A serving Police personnel candidate who participates under that quota cannot claim migration to the Unreserved/Open Category merely because he or she has secured marks higher than the last selected Open Category candidate. Such migration, if permitted solely based on marks, would have the effect of enlarging the prescribed 15% allocation and would be contrary to the recruitment scheme.

The Result dated 02.07.2026, published on 07.07.2026, has been prepared in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and Instructions dated 27.10.2025 and the prescribed reservation methodology. No patent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides or procedural infirmity has been demonstrated warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot substitute a different method of allocation for the one expressly prescribed by the competent authority.

The contention regarding Rule 10(xvi) also does not persuade us. Appendix-3 prescribes the applicable Physical Efficiency Test standards, while Rule 10(xvi) governs the way the Police Category operates within the recruitment process. The existence or otherwise of relaxation in a particular physical test cannot, by itself, render the entire statutory classification invalid. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Rule 10(xvi), read with the other applicable provisions, is manifestly arbitrary or contrary to any statutory or constitutional provision.

The reliance placed upon Rules 10(xiii), 10(xiv), 18(i) and 18(iii) is also insufficient to invalidate the Result. These provisions have to be read harmoniously with Rule 10(xvi) and Rule 18(iv), which specifically regulate the treatment of candidates belonging to the Police Category. The alleged difference between the Open-category cut-off and the Police-category cut-off, by itself, does not establish an error in the selection process unless the petitioners demonstrate that the respondents have acted contrary to the prescribed methodology.

The allegation of discriminatory treatment between male and female police personnel also does not, by itself, establish a constitutional violation. Different treatment can amount to discrimination only when similarly situated persons are shown to have been subjected to unequal treatment without a rational basis. On the material placed before us, the petitioners have not established that the respondents departed from the prescribed Rules in preparing the Result.

Having regard to the Recruitment Rules & Instructions dated 27.10.2025, particularly Rules 10(xiii), 10(xiv), 10(xvi), 18(i), 18(iii) and 18(iv), the Final Result dated 02.07.2026 published on 07.07.2026, and the other material placed on record, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to establish any patent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

We are of the considered opinion that general open candidates, the horizontal quota for police personnel, is a specialized promotional/service avenue created under the framework of the Madhya Pradesh Police Executive (Non-Gazette) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997, specifically designed to address distinct service conditions. Rule 10(xvi)(i) and Rule 18(iv) of the Rulebook expressly mandate that police personnel participating under the reserved horizontal stream are evaluated according to the structural parameters and compartmentalized mechanics defined for the service quota.

The reliance placed by the petitioners on Saurav Yadav (supra) and Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra) is misplaced in the context of a specialized intra-departmental service quota. Horizontal reservation for in-service police personnel operates as a distinct vertical-sub-quota mechanism embedded within service regulations, wherein candidates compete within their designated operational class. The structure of the rules does not contemplate open migration of service-quota candidates into general open seats in the manner suggested, as such an interpretation would subvert the objective of providing secure, dedicated career progression to personnel serving in the lower echelons of the police force. In matters of public employment and specialized departmental quotas, the executive parameters set out in the rulebook, unless found to be violative of any statutory enactment or constitutional mandate, cannot be lightly interfered with under writ jurisdiction.

Consequently, the petitioners have failed to establish any enforceable right to be adjusted against the Unreserved/Open Category based on their higher marks. The challenge to the Result dated 02.07.2026 and the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules and Instructions dated 27.10.2025 is devoid of merit and does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.