Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhyanendra Singh Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 October, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Sunita Yadav, Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT APPEAL No. 272 of 2023
DHYANENDRA SINGH JADON
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Shri J.P. Kushwah - Advocate for the respondent No.4.
Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for the caveator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 03/09/2024
Delivered on : 03/10/2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke:
The instant writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand fNyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is
directed against the order dated 17.01.2023 passed in writ petition
No.9029/2012 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition of
the appellant was dismissed on account that since more than 10 years
have passed after the writ petition was pending consideration and the
new incumbent has already been appointed in the year 2017,
therefore, no useful purpose shall be sub-served addressing on the
question raised in this writ petition at this distance of time.
2. Assailing the said order learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the ground on which the petition has been dismissed is
non-est in law, as any person appointed during subsistence of
litigation with regard to a post shall be subjected to the outcome of
the said litigation and on this count that a person has been appointed
and number of years have passed thereafter, the original lis between
other two person would come to an end is wholly impermissible, as in
case any of the persons litigating would succeed, as a natural
corollary any subsequent order affecting the rights of the successful
candidate shall have to give way and would be of no consequence, but
the aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the learned Single
Judge and had dismissed the petition.
3. It was further argued that the order of learned Single Judge is
against the settled principle of law, as passed by the Apex Court in the
matter of Bibhudatta Mohanty v. Union of India & Ors., reported
in (2002) 4 SCC 16, wherein it has been held that if any person is
appointed on temporary vacancy, which was created due to non
appointment of the eligible candidate and the matter is sub judice,
then the said consequential order of appointment is not required to be
challenged and the said appointment would be subject to the final
outcome of litigation, thus, on this count the dismissal of the
application since based upon perverse findings requires to be set
aside.
4. To bolster his submissions, reliance was also placed in the
matter of Smt. Ramshree Sen Vs. Smt. Sharda Sharma and others
passed in W.A. No.293/2017 vide order dated 06.10.2017.
5. On the other hand, Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is in conformity with the law and
needs no interference.
6. Likewise, Shri J.P. Kushwah, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.4 though had opposed the prayer made on behalf of
the petitioner but had candidly admitted that the order passed by
learned Single Judge suffers from vice of non consideration of the
legal position thus does not lay down correct preposition of law.
7. Learned counsel for the caveator (candidate who has been
appointed during the pendency of the lis) had also submitted that the
caveator is being working since 2017, therefore, the learned Single
Judge has rightly held that no purpose would be sub-served in
addressing the question raised in writ petition at this distance of time,
thus, had supported the order of the Single Judge and prayed for
dismissal of the present appeal.
8. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the
legal position, this Court finds that the order passed by the learned
Single Judge doesn't withstand the wrath of judicial scrutiny, as
admittedly there was an interim order of this Court, whereby
appointment order of respondent No.4 on the post of Gram Rojgar
Sahayak was stayed and in the midst of the litigation one Hemlata
Jadon has been appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak on the
vacant post, thus, in the light of judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the appellant the order passed by the learned Single Judge
doesn't deserve to stand. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.
9. Since the factual aspect of the matter is yet to be decided, this
Court deems it fit to relegate the matter back to the Single Judge for
consideration of the writ petition on its own merits.
10. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands allowed and
disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
neetu
NEETU
SHASH
2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec
09e066bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a
1cf27eaa2ce, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500
ANK
EAADE1E0B3B8565CB3A7DC9F5CD0
48197DF0FF3149AE58, cn=NEETU
SHASHANK
Date: 2024.10.03 18:14:42 -07'00'
