Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Dhakad 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. 2268 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SURESH DHAKAD S/O SHRI PARPAT SINGH DHAKAD,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOKRI, GOVT.
SCHOOL. TINSYAI 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
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER, RAJYA SHIKCHHA KENDRA,
PUSHTAK BHAWAN, - B WING ARERA HILLS,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (MISSION SANCHALAK)
DISTRICT SHIKCHHA KENDRA, GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PANCHAYAT
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PROJECT COORDINATOR, ZILA
SHIKCHHA KENDRA, GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHIVNARAYAN JATAV S/O GOPIRAM, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL
GAJIPUR, DISTRICT 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 06-12-2023
04:04:41 PM
2
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 tuf'k{kd ds in ij izfrfu;qfDr
ds vkns'k ikfjr dj vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 20-01-2020 esa ls ljy dz-19 ls
izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dz- 6 dk uke fujLr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr djsaA
7 -2 - izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dz- 1 yxk;r 5 dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd
;kfpdkdrkZ ds }kjk tuf'k{kd ds in ij dkmalfyax mijkar ojh;rk ds dze
esa ,oa ik= ik;s tkus ds dze esa vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 20-01-2020 esa ls
izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dz- 6 dk uke fujLr fd;k tkdj ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fgr esa
uohu 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 20.01.2020 (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
