Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Fresh Consideration Of Rojgar Sahayak Candidate Denied Full Marks Despite Having Required Computer Qualification

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an order that denied full marks to a candidate in the selection process for the post of Rojgar Sahayak under a state employment scheme, holding that the authorities had wrongly awarded fewer marks despite the candidate possessing the required computer qualification. The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature after granting him the correct marks in accordance with the applicable policy.

Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat passed the order while deciding a writ petition filed by Rambeer Singh Yadav challenging the order dated September 16, 2010. The petitioner had approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the impugned order and a direction to complete the selection process strictly as per the prescribed policy and marking criteria.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate S.K. Sharma, assisted by Advocate Pooja Shukla, argued that the State had introduced a scheme under the Madhya Pradesh Rojgar Guarantee Parishad to promote employment opportunities in rural areas. For the effective implementation of the scheme, workers were engaged as Rojgar Sahayaks, and their appointments were to be made according to a policy dated April 14, 2010 which prescribed the procedure for selection and distribution of marks.

Under the policy, 20 marks were allocated for a computer qualification certificate, while the remaining marks were distributed among other qualifications and experience to calculate the final merit score. The petitioner contended that he possessed the requisite computer qualification certificate but was awarded only 15 marks instead of the prescribed 20 marks during the evaluation process.

The State opposed the plea through Government Advocate Rinkesh Goyal, arguing that the petitioner did not hold a diploma certificate and therefore was not entitled to the full 20 marks under the policy. According to the State, only 15 marks were correctly awarded in view of the petitioner’s qualifications.

After hearing the parties and examining the record, the court found that the policy governing the appointment of Rojgar Sahayaks clearly prescribed 20 marks for candidates possessing a computer qualification certificate. The court observed that the petitioner indeed possessed such a certificate and therefore should have been awarded the full marks as per the selection criteria.

The court also took note of the reply filed by the respondents, which acknowledged that the petitioner had been wrongly awarded 15 marks due to a misunderstanding. The reply stated that under the State policy, computer diploma holders were entitled to 20 marks but that the impugned order had mistakenly awarded only 15 marks.

Quoting from the reply, the court recorded that, “as per the policy framed by the state authorities 20 marks has to be awarded for computer diploma holders though due to some misunderstanding in the order impugned 15 marks has to be awarded.”

The High court further examined the relevant circular and provisions governing the qualifications for the post. It noted that the scheme required candidates to pass a computer examination from recognized institutions, including universities recognized by the University Grants Commission, open universities, DOEACC diploma-level examinations, or the Modern Office Management course from a Government Polytechnic College.

Importantly, the court clarified that the essential requirement under the scheme was passing the computer examination and not necessarily holding a diploma certificate as argued by the State. It therefore rejected the State’s contention that the petitioner was ineligible for the full marks.

Observing that the authorities had misapplied the policy, the court held that the impugned order could not be sustained. Accordingly, it quashed the order dated September 16, 2010 and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature after awarding him the correct 20 marks for his computer qualification.

The court further directed that if, after reconsideration, the petitioner is found suitable for appointment, the authorities must extend all consequential benefits to him within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Case Title: Rambeer Singh Yadav v. State of M.P. and Others

Date of Order: February 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat