Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Kumar Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18309
1 WP-32927-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 20th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 32927 of 2025
PRAVEEN KUMAR RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Harshit Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Parashar - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure
P/1), whereby his representation for restoring his lien on the post of Sahayak
Shikshak, has been rejected by the District Education Officer, Shivpuri.
2. The facts which are not in dispute in this case are that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi in the year 2000. He was absorbed
as Sahayak Adhyapak in the year 2014. The petitioner, thereafter,
participated in the process of recruitment for the post of Patwari after taking
permission from his earlier employer. He was selected and appointed on the
post of Patwari. Before joining the post of Patwari, he tendered resignation
from his earlier post. The petitioner has been working as Patwari since last
2014 and he has been confirmed on the said post after successfully
completing the period of probation. The petitioner now wants restoration of
his lien on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18309
2 WP-32927-2025
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
made a representation in this regard in the year 2016. Till this time, he was
not confirmed on the post of Patwari and, therefore, his lien was continuing
on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak. The respondents were, therefore, required
to consider his request in the fact situation as obtaining in the year 2016. The
learned counsel further submitted that the post of Patwari holds the field
work and because of petitioner's health condition, he is not in a position to
discharge the functions of Patwari. He further submitted that the respondent -
District Education Officer, has rejected his representation on erroneous
grounds inasmuch as the provisions of FR 13 & 14 are equally applicable to
the employees working in Panchayat Department. The learned counsel
placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Santosh &
others Vs. State of M.P. & others (W.P.No.2634/2020) . He further placed
reliance upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of L.R. Patil
Vs. Gulbarga University, Gulbarga reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 748.
4. The facts not in dispute are that the petitioner wilfully participated
in the process of recruitment on the post of Patwari after taking permission
from his earlier employer. He got selected and joined on the post of Patwari.
Admittedly, he tendered resignation from the post of Sahayak Adhyapak
before joining on the post of Patwari. He is working as Patwari for last 11
years. Once the petitioner has tendered his resignation, his lien on the post of
Sahayak Adhyapak got automatically terminated and he acquired on the post
of Patwari.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18309
3 WP-32927-2025
Court judgment rendered in the case of L.R. Patil (supra) to say that so long
as he was not confirmed on the post of Patwari, he continued to have his lien
on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak. It is his submission that since he had
already made representation to go back to the post of Sahayak Adhyapak in
the year 2016 before he was confirmed on the post of Patwari, he could have
been sent to his earlier post. This submission of petitioner's counsel is also
not acceptable firstly because the date of his confirmation on the post of
Patwari is not available on record. Secondly, he may have submitted
application in the year 2016, however, subsequently, he is confirmed on the
post of Patwari resulting in termination of his lien from the post of Sahayak
Adhyapak. The petitioner could have come to court immediately when no
action was being taken on his request for restoration of his lien. Now,
restoring his lien on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak would effect a third
person who may have been appointed on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak.
Therefore, the Apex Court judgment does not help the petitioner.
6. Thus, the request now being made by the petitioner for going back
to the post of Sahayak Adhyapak is not permissible in law. The respondents
therefore, did not err in rejecting the petitioner's representation.
7. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.
The petition fails and is dismissed in limine.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
