Rajnikant Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20357 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajnikant Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2023

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                              1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                              ON THE 4 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 5017 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAJNIKANT SHARMA S/O SHRI JAYGOPAL SHARMA,
                           AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O
                           GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL PATNA, BAMORI, GUNA
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI K.K. SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
                                 DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
                                 (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    AYU K T, RAJYA SHIKSHA KENDRA, PUSTAK
                                 BHAWAN, B-WING, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    ZILADHEESH   (MISHAN    SANCHALAK), ZILA
                                 SHIKSHA KENDRA, GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    MUKHYA      KARYAPALAN    ADHIKARI, ZILA
                                 PANCHAYAT , GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    ZILA PARIYOJNA SAMANVAYAK, ZILA SHIKSHA
                                 KENDRA, GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI S.S. KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed

seeking following reliefs as under:-

**7-1- izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dz- 1 yxk;r 5 dks vknssf'kr@funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dks ojh"Brk ds vk/kkj ij izfrfu;qfDr ckor tkjh vfufre lwph fnukad 03-02-2021 A,usDtj ih&1A dks fujLr dh ojh;rk ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdkdrkZ dk uke vfufre lwph esa 'kkfey fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr djsaA 7-2- izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa jkT; 'kklu ds }kjk tkjh vkns'kksa@funsZ'kksa ds ikyu esa voS/kkfud :i ls tkjh vfufre lwph fnukad 03-02-2021 esa ;kfpdkdrkZ dks uke 'kkfey dj ofj"Brk ds vk/kkj ij izfrfu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh djsaA 7-3- vU; dksZbZ vkns'k@funZs'k ekuuh; U;k;ky; tks mfpr le>ssa tkjh fd;k tkosA^^ At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on

the order passed in W.P.No.21972/2015 in the matter of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. and connected writ petitions by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09/12/2016 contended that respondents cannot create a class within class and could not deprive a person for submitting his candidature for the post of Jan Shikshak/BAC if he otherwise fulfills the eligibility criteria. It was further contended that to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely: (1) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (2) the differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. It was further submitted that what is necessary is that there must be nexus between classification and object of the Act under consideration and as it is well established by the decisions of various Courts that Article 14 condemns discrimination not to the substance of law but also by a law of procedure. It is submitted that since the matter is squarely

covered by the aforesaid decision which was challenged by the respondents/State in Writ Appeal No.702/2017 which was also dismissed vide order dated 03.11.2017, the present petition being placed on similar facts deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State though opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and could not controvert the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra).

After hearing rival contentions and going through the contents of the petition as well as the order passed by this Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (supra), this Court find that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the findings arrived therein would apply mutatis mutandis to the present matter.

In the view of the Court, respondents have created a class within a class and had divided homogeneous class of eligible candidates without there being any justification there. This action of the respondents depriving the petitioner there right of consideration cannot be upheld.

In view of the aforesaid judgment and analysis, this Court finds that the order date 03.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) is perse illegal, therefore, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to conduct a counseling for the petitioner and if posts are available as on today the

petitioner may be considered for appointment on the post of Jan Shikshak on the basis of the seniority.

The petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

Monika