Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwati Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20972
1 WP-30869-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 30869 of 2025
BHAGWATI PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhag Mal Porwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is identical to
W.P No.4240/2025 (Jagdish Chandra and Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors.) decided on 7/2/2025 and the same be disposed of in the light of the
aforesaid judgment.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were Anudeshak in
non-formal education centre run by the State Government and the State
Government had framed a policy to give a chance to such Anudeshak and Guruji,
working in the non-formal centres to be absorbed in the cadre of Samvida Shala
Shikshak Grade-II, and an examination was conducted for the said purpose. The
petitioner's claim that he had appeared in the examination conducted in the year
2008 and had qualified the said examination. He placed reliance on the score-card
placed on record with the petition.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that earlier also the petitioner had
filed a writ petition before this Court and the said petition was disposed of with
direction to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20972
2 WP-30869-2025
Manmohan Mathur Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No.1102/2010) , which was
thereafter followed by other Benches of this Court.
4. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the State Government had
gone in appeal to the Supreme Court against one such order: and in S.L.P. (Civil)
No. 23966- 23965/2022 (Smita Shrivastava Vs State of M. P and others) , the
Supreme Court has allowed the appeals of similarly situated employees.
5. Upon perusal of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case
of Smita Shrivastava, it is seen that the Supreme Court has held that subsequent
amendment dated 21.03.2018 making the amended rule effective from 01.01.2008
as a malafide action and an attempt to circumvent the order passed by the High
Court by hook. or crook. The Supreme Court in Para No.8 of the aforesaid
judgment has held as under:-
""8. It is a glaring case wherein the adamant, arbitrary, mala
fide and highhanded approach of the State Government and
its officials has driven the appellant to a series of prolonged
litigations which were evidently not out ofher choice. In
spite of having passed the selection exam held for the post of
Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III way back on 31st
August, 2008, the appellant did not reap the, fruits of her
success. The State Government took- --the shield of an
amended the rule i.e. Rule 7-A, issued on 2nd July, 2009 for
denying relief to the 'appellant herein, even when the said
rule had no retrospective application. Not only this, in spite
of the High Court having struck down the said rule and
passing repeated orders in favour of the appellant, another
notification dated 21st March, 2018 was issued making the
amended rule effective from Ist January, 2008 i.e. prior to
the date of recruitment. This was clearly a malafide action in
an attempt to circumvent the orders passed by the High
Court by hook or by crook so as to prevent the appellant and
her peers of their lawful claim to appointment which stood
crystalized long back. However, despite recognizing all the
unjustified orders faced by the appellant, the Division Bench
of High Court of Madhya Pradesh failed to provide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20972
3 WP-30869-2025
restitutive relief to the appellant even after holding that she
was illegally deprived of her lawful entitlement."
6. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that the case of the
petitioner has to be considered in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Manmohan Mathur and Anil Bhatt (W.P No.91/2011) . The case of the petitioner
has to be considered by ignoring the subsequent amendment dated 31.03.2018
made effective from 01.01.2008.
7. Consequently, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner by examining the parity of the petitioner with
the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) and if the case of the petitioner is at par with
the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) then the same benefits shall be granted to the
petitioner as has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smita
Shrivastava (supra). Let the action be taken within 2 period of two months from
the date of production certified copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ns
