Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Udeniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7679
1 WA-829-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 3 rd OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 829 of 2025
SHAILENDRA UDENIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava and Shri Rajeev Sharma - Advocates for appellant.
Shri Vijay Sundaram- Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Pratip Visoriya- Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
Shri Ashok Jain - Advocate for respondent No.6.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the
appellant (hereinafter referred as "petitioner") being crestfallen by the order dated
06.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.5518 of 2008 whereby the writ petition filed by
the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent Nos.3
to 6 qualified written examination conducted by Professional Examination Board
(in short "VYAPAM") for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade -III in
pursuance to the M.P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and
Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2001. Under the said advertisement, 48 posts of
Samvida Shala Shikshak were unreserved, whereas 23 posts were kept reserved
for scheduled Tribe and 12 posts were kept reserved for OBC and accordingly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7679
2 WA-829-2025
total 85 posts were advertised. Petitioner secured 53.04% marks in the entrance
test conducted by VYAPAM and whose name was mentioned at serial No.286 in
the selection list (Annexure P-6). Respondent No.3 obtained only 52% marks in
the entrance test and respondent No.4 secured 50.96 marks and respondent No.5
secured 39.52 marks in the entrance examination. It is alleged that above
respondents never had any teaching experience before their recruitment, but
teaching experience marks awarded to respondent No.3 to 6 were absolutely based
upon forged documents submitted by them, while the 20 marks of D.Ed. to be
awarded to the petitioner, were not awarded to him.
3. It was the submission of learned counsel for petitioner before the learned
Writ Court that since respondent Nos.3 to 6 never had any experience and
obtained experience certificate by way of forged documents, whereby the
additional marks (20 marks) awarded to the respondents deserve deletion.
Petitioner is more meritorious in comparison to all these respondents. Therefore,
impugned order passed by learned Writ Court as well as by Collector, Datia is
based upon illegal assumption and appears to be arbitrary.
4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1/State supported the impugned
order.
5. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 also vehemently opposed the
submissions advanced by petitioner and submitted that petitioner was way below
in merit list, therefore, even if private respondents would had been removed, even
then petitioner was not in position to get job. Petitioner pleaded mala fides , but
unless those mala fides pleaded in specific terms against those persons who were
involved in selection process, said plea is not maintainable. Beside that it is not a
case of bereft of basic qualification, but is a case where experience gained by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7679
3 WA-829-2025
private respondents by imparting informal tuition was considered. Certificate
issued in this regard by DEO was neither forged nor fabricated. Only on the basis
of alleged procedural irregularity, petition was filed.
6. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.3 to 6 are at present, serving
for last 19 years and settled thing ought not to be unsettled.
7. Heard counsel for parties at length and perused the documents and
impugned order.
8. This is a case where petitioner is taking exception to the selection process
conducted way back in year 2006, whereby petitioner along with respondent
Nos.3 to 6 participated in examination for appointment to the post of Samvida
Shala Shikshak Grade- III.
9. After going through the impugned order passed by learned Writ Court as
well as order dated 21.10.2008 passed by Collector, District- Datia, it appears that
proper consideration of the fact situation and legal provisions have been made.
Thereafter, authority as well as Writ Court came to the conclusion about the
futility of appeal/petition. Collector, District- Datia passed reasoned and speaking
order because concerned C.E.O. of Janpad Panchayat submitted before Collector,
District- Datia that experience certificates have duly been verified. Once, the
competent/relevant authority verified the documents, then if this Court enters into
fishing/roving inquiry, then it would be appearing into the arena of subjectivity
and in the process, objectivity may be lost.
10. Factual details have been discussed by the Collector, District- Datia and
thereafter, by the learned Writ Court. Once an Expert Committee/Appointment
Committee was constituted and given recommendations, then these
recommendations are to be given due weightage. Apex Court in the cases of Dr.
Basavaiah Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors. 2010 (8) SCC 372 and Sajeesh Babu K.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7679
4 WA-829-2025
Vs. N.K. Santosh & Ors. AIR 2013 SC 141 has discussed in detail about this
aspect and held that Courts have to show deference and consideration to the
recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the
field.
11. Here, Appointment Committee duly vetted the performance of
candidates and thereafter, came to a particular conclusion.
12. One more aspect deserves consideration is that respondent Nos. 3 to 6
are working for last 19 years after duly selected by the authorities and it appears
that they are working for so many years with the satisfaction of authority.
Therefore, in view of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Tridip
Kumar Dingal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2009 (1) SCC 768, equity also
tilted in favour of present respondent Nos.3 to 6.
13. After going through the impugned order passed by Collector, District-
Datia and order of learned Writ Court, it appears that no case for interference is
made out.
14. Appeal is bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
*VJ*
