Chandra Jeet Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 16668 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                            ON THE 15 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 28709 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    CHANDRA JEET YADAV S/O SHRI RAMSAHAB
                                 YADAV, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 9TH BNSAF REWA CONSTABLE GD POSTED
                                 PRESENT SISAF BHATLO REWA M.P ROLL NO.
                                 23450224 REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    NARENDRA KUSHWAHA S/O SHRI HOSHI LAL
                                 KUSHWAHA,       AGED   ABOUT   32   YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: CONSTABLE GD POSTED PRESENT
                                 17TH B.N.S.A.F. BEHIND PRESENT PLACE SEONI
                                 MALWA         NARMADAPURAM        DISTRICT
                                 NARMADAPURAM ROLL NO. 662746 (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI V.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 THE     PRINCIPAL  SECRETARY    HOME
                                 DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
                                 H EA D Q U A R TER S JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
                                 POLICE (SELECTION) P.H.Q. JAHANGIRABAD,
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI G.P. SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: APARNA TIWARI
Signing time: 12/16/2022
2:25:38 PM
                                                                 2
                                                                 ORDER

Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making following prayer : -

"(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the post under the District Police establishment considering the preference given by the petitioners for the appointment.

(ii) To direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners i n District Police with all consequential benefits like seniority and pay protection similarly to order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Kurmi (supra).

(iii) To direct the respondents to decide the representation in favour

of the petitioners.

(iv) Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioners."

2. It is submitted that petitioners have filed representation and same is pending for consideration. Similar matter has been disposed of by this Court directing respondents to consider the case of petitioners in light of judgment passed by the Apex Court reported in case of Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L. Yamul (Dr.), reported in (1996) 3 SCC 253. In these circumstances, respondents be directed to consider and decide representation of petitioners in accordance with law after considering judgment passed by the Apex Court.

3. Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that in case of Ritesh R. Sah (supra) vacancy was available, therefore, Court has passed the order. In present case, petitioners have come before Court after delay and there is no vacancy available against which petitioners can be considered and equity which is in favour of State has been disturbed by delay on part of petitioners.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TIWARI Signing time: 12/16/2022 2:25:38 PM

5. Considering aforesaid, writ petition filed by petitioners is disposed off directing respondents to consider the representation filed by petitioners in accordance with the order passed by Apex Court in case of Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L. Yamul (Dr.), reported in (1996) 3 SCC 253 and question of delay in filing representation and disturbance of equity, due to delay, will remain open before the authorities.

6. No opinion is expressed on merits of the case.

7. With aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.

8. C.C. as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE AT

Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TIWARI Signing time: 12/16/2022 2:25:38 PM