Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harsha Chaudhary vs State Of M.P on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17406
1 WP-6328-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 12th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6328 of 2012
HARSHA CHAUDHARY
Versus
STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.B.S. Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
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 order annexure P/3 dated 17.07.2012 passed by the
respondent no.3, whereby the respondent no.4 & 5 have been
selected on the post of Patwari kindly quashed.
(ii) That, the respondents kindly directed to select petitioner on the
post of Patwari and send her training and grant all consequence
benefit including salary and seniority since the date, from which
less meritorious have been granted.
(iii) That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered."
3. Learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for
respondents/State jointly submit that the controversy involved in this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17406
2 WP-6328-2012
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 paragraphs 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, the allegation of discrimination and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17406
3 WP-6328-2012
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
Monika
