Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ms. Rani Chouhan vs Home Department on 1 April, 2025

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8536




                                                             1                               WP-3005-2019
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                  ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 3005 of 2019
                                                  MS. RANI CHOUHAN
                                                        Versus
                                             HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                                 Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                 Shri Anirudha Malpani - G.A for the respondent/State.

                                                                 ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary order dated 26/10/2017 issued by the respondent No.1 appointing various persons less meritorious than the petitioner under Scheduled Caste (SC) category on the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer (ADPO) in the regular payscale of Rs.36200-114800/- including respondent No.3 overlooking meritorious claim of the petitioner, without any rhyme or reason. Not only this, various other less meritorious persons have subsequently been appointed by

respondent No.1 on the post of ADPO by order dated 15/11/2017, 8/1/2018, 22/3/2018, 1/5/2018, 1/10/2018 etc. but the petitioner is not being appointed by the respondents for some extraneous considerations.

2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court dated 7/11/2024 in W.P No.24349/2019 (Rajeev Kumar Jain vs. Home Department and Ors.). He

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8536

2 WP-3005-2019 submits that the respondent no.3 has issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of ADPO in the year 2015. The examination was conducted and the petitioner being eligible for the said post had appeared for the said selection. In the attestation form, he had disclosed the filing of registration of FIR against him containing charges of trivial in nature. Considering the same, the petitioner was called for interview in which the petitioner participated and was selected for the said post. The procedure regarding verification of requisite documents and also medical examinations was completed.

3. Due to the aforesaid, the appointment order was not issued. Though, the persons who were less meritorious then the petitioner were appointed on 26.10.2017, 08.01.2018, 22.03.2018, 01.05.2018, 01.10.2018. However, the

petitioner was not given appointment. The petitioner submitted number of representations but no heed was paid.

4. Counsel for the State could not point out that how the case of the present petition is distinguishable from the said petition. He argued that since the validity of the merit list has expired and the maximum period of validity of merit list as prescribed under Rule 17(4) of MP Public Prosecution Gazetted Services Recruitment Rules, 1991 has expired, and therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim the appointment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Dinesh Malvi Vs. State of MP and Anr. passed in WP No.7299/2019 dated 18.08.2023, whereby, under similar circumstances arising out of the same selection,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8536

3 WP-3005-2019 because of the default on the part of the respondents, the appointment order was not issued, this Court held that the appointment cannot be denied to a selected candidate due to inaction or default committed by the respondent. The petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to issue appointment order on the post of ADPO. In the said case, the petitioner was a waiting list candidate.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is on better footing as he is included in the main merit list and he is denied appointment only on the ground of the expiration of the validity of the select list.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it expedient to dispose off the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation before the respondent no.1 along with relevant documents and copy of the order passed in the case of Dinesh (supra) and also order passed today within the period of one month from today and if such representation is submitted, the respondent no.1 shall consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for appointment keeping in view the order passed in the case of Dinesh (supra) within further period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner.

8. In the event, if the petitioner is found to be entitled being similarly placed to Dinesh Malvi, the petitioner shall be given appointment to the said post in accordance with law and in case if the respondent is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the appointment, he shall assign reasons and

shall communicate the same to the petitioner.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8536

4 WP-3005-2019

9. It is further observed that in case, if the appointment of the petitioner is given on the said post, the petitioner shall have liberty to resort the remedy in accordance with law for the remaining grievances regarding consequential benefits etc.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE