Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Kumar Shukla vs State Of M.P. on 2 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7613
1 WP-3238-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3238 of 2010
SURENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saurabh Bhelsewale - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Shailendra Singh Kushwaha - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the respondents no.1 to 5 may kindly be directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for absorption to the posts of
U.D.T. as directed by this Hon'ble Court vide order Annexure P/2
and the respondents No.1 to 5 be further directed that if the
petitioner is found suitable he be observed to the post of U.D.T.
alongwith all consequential benefits respondents No.1 and 2 be
further directed to take action against the officers who illegally
recommended the names of ineligible person for absorption in
earlier screening committee.
(ii) Cost of the petitioner be awarded or
(iii) any other suitable order or direction deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner."
2 . It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by order dated
03.04.1994 petitioner was appointed on the post of teacher in S.K. Higher
Secondary School, Gohata, District Morena. He was teacher of English
subject. Thereafter, in the year 2000, private schools were taken over by
State Government and teacher were to be absorbed. Although case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7613
2 WP-3238-2010
petitioner was considered, but he was not absorbed. Some of the similarly
situated persons, who were either not absorbed or whose absorption was
rejected/withdrawn, filed a Writ Petition No.5193/2008 which was disposed
of by Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 07.05.2009 with a
direction to the authorities to consider relevant recruitment rules and
statutory provisions related to qualification/reservation, if any and other
statutory provisions which were in vogue at the time of institution was taken
over by the State Government i.e. in the year 2000 and to pass appropriate
orders after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as
other identically placed persons whose absorption has been
cancelled/absorption has been set aside by an order dated 17.10.2008. It is
submitted that thereafter screening committee was required to consider the
case of teachers who were working in private school which were ultimately
taken over by the State, but case of petitioner was not considered by
screening committee, therefore, it is submitted that non-absorption of
petitioner in the government school is bad in law.
3 . Per contra, respondents have denied the averments made in the
petition. It is submitted that screening committee in its meeting had
considered the case of petitioner and it was found that three posts meant for
scheduled caste reserved category are vacant out of which one post is of
English teacher and two posts are of Agriculture teachers. Thus, petitioner
could not be appointed because no post which could have been filled by
unreserved category was available.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7613
3 WP-3238-2010
5 . The solitary contention of counsel for petitioner is that after order
dated 07.05.2009 was passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.5193/2008, screening committee did not held any meeting.
Respondents have claimed that although petitioner was not one of the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.5193/2008, but his case was considered
by screening committee. Respondents have also filed a copy of newspaper
mentioning therein that meeting of screening committee in respect of S.K.
Higher School, Gohata, District Morena would be held on 17th. It is
specifically mentioned in the said newspaper cutting that meeting
of screening committee is being held in the light of judgment passed by
Court. Although from the newspaper cutting, date of publication of such
news is not clear, but use of word today clearly shows that it was published
on 17th of November, but year is not clear. However, words that meeting
of screening committee is being organized in the light of judgment passed by
Court were used, therefore, it has to be presumed that meeting of screening
committee was held subsequent to the direction given by Coordinate Bench
of this Court by order dated 07.05.2009 passed in Writ Petition
No.5193/2008.
6 . Respondents have filed copy of minutes of screening committee.
According to which, case of petitioner was considered. Some of the teachers
were absorbed. However, it was also observed that three posts which are
meant for reserved category of scheduled caste are vacant as no eligible
candidate is found. It is also mentioned that out of those three posts, one post
is of English teacher and remaining posts are meant for Agriculture teacher.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7613
4 WP-3238-2010
Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the return filed by respondents. Thus,
in absence of any challenge to the findings recorded by screening committee,
this Court is of considered opinion that since no post which could have been
filled by a candidate of unreserved category was available and the posts
which were available were reserved for scheduled caste category and this
Court while deciding Writ Petition No.5193/2008 had specifically mentioned
that authorities will be required to keep the relevant recruitment rules as well
as roaster/reservation into consideration, no case is made out for interfering
in the matter, as no post which could have been filled by unreserved category
candidate was available at the relevant point of time. Furthermore, in the year
2010 petitioner had disclosed his age as 47 years. Thus, he must have
attained the age of 62 years which is the age of superannuation of
government employee. Even otherwise, now this Court would not be in a
position to given any substantive relief to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Rashid
