Madhya Pradesh High Court
Megh Singh Narwariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17197
1 WP-4111-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4111 of 2012
MEGH SINGH NARWARIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.B.S. Tomar - learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Dilip Awasthi - learned Government Advocate for the
respondents No.1 to 3/State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to
11, 15, 16 and 20.
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by
the petitioners seeking following relief(s):-
(i) That the respondents be directed to issue offer of appointment
in favour of the petitioners and send the petitioners for ensuing
training of Patwari.
(ii) That the respondents be further directed to give due seniority
to the petitioners over the 17 candidates i.e. respondents No.4 to
20 as per the directions given by this Hon'ble Court in view of the
decision in the case of Yogesh Tembhurne (supra), who are less
meritorious and who have been given appointment as per t
(iii) That any other relief which is suitable in the facts and
circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17197
2 WP-4111-2012
costs throughout may also be granted.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned counsel for
respondents/State and learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 11, 15, 16
and 20 jointly submit that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely
covered by order dated 14.05.2013 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P. No. 4897 of 2012 ( Pradeep Singh Gurjar and others v. State of
M.P.). The learned counsel for the parties admit that the direction which was
issued vide order dated 14.5.2013 in W.P. No.4897/2012 may apply mutatis
mutandis in this case also.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The relevant paras of 22 and 23 in the case of Pradeep Singh Gurjar
(supra) reads as under:
22. Apart from this, the Chahattishgarh University was established
on 30.8.2003 and ceased to exist on account of its de-notification
.w.e.f. 20.7.2004. Thus, it remained in existence for less than a
year. It is beyond comprehension as to how the petitioners have
completed one year diploma course from the said University when
the university itself was not alive for one year and after the cut off
date, there is no material to show that the petitioners/students were
transferred to any other University. The petitioners' subject and
details do not find place in the order of the Guru Ghasidas
University, Bilaspur which had taken over certain number of
students and granted them temporary affiliation. Thus, for this
reason also, the respondents have not committed any error in
disbelieving the certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioners
has relied on certain judgments of Supreme Court reproduced
above. However, those judgments regarding promissory estoppal
have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Apart from this, in my considered opinion, unless the documents
of the petitioners are found to be genuine and correct, they cannot
be permitted to draw parity from any other set of candidates of
any other district. The genuineness and correctness of the
documents of each candidate has to be examined separately. Thus,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17197
3 WP-4111-2012
the allegation of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution has no substance and is rejected.
23. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, the
respondents have not committed any error in rejecting the claim of
the petitioners for appointment on the post of Pawari on the basis
of certificate allegedly issued by Chhattisgarh University. On my
further opinion, this is a matter of common knowledge that there
are mushroom growth of fake institutions, who have no
recognition, campus and still they are running fake courses. In that
scenario, the employer is well within its right to examine the
genuineness and correctness of the certificates in a microscopic
manner. The method so adopted by the respondents in examining
the certificate is in accordance with law and no arbitrariness can
be found in the same. In nutshell, I find no.reason to interfere in
this petition. Petitions are bereft of merit and substance and are
hereby dismissed.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties, this petition is also dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
