Hardayesh Shrivasthava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh General ... on 16 December, 2025

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

1 RP-287-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
REVIEW PETITION No. 289 of 2024
NIDHI SINGH RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal. Deputy AG for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Piyush Mathur, Senior Counsel with Shri Abhishek Bajpai, learned counsel for
respondent No. 2.
WITH
REVIEW PETITION No. 286 of 2024
ROHAN SAXENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal. Deputy AG for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Piyush Mathur, Senior Counsel with Shri Abhishek Bajpai, learned counsel for
the respondent No. 2.

REVIEW PETITION No. 287 of 2024
HARDAYESH SHRIVASTHAVA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal. Deputy AG for the respondent/State.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 12/16/2025
6:10:55 PM
2 RP-287-2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 302 of 2024
ASHISH KUMAR PATHAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Kushal Goyal. Deputy AG for the respondent/State.

REVIEW PETITION No. 306 of 2024
SMT. SAPNA M LOWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:

Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Kushal Goyal. Deputy AG for the respondent/State.

REVIEW PETITION No. 335 of 2024
ABHISHEK DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Mini Revindran, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Kushal Goyal. Deputy AG for the respondent/State.

REVIEW PETITION No. 342 of 2024
RAJNISH KASERA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 12/16/2025
6:10:55 PM
3 RP-287-2024
Shri Kushal Goyal. Deputy AG for the respondent/State.

ORDER

(Reserved on 15.09.2025) (Pronounced on 16.12.2025)

Since these petitions raise common questions of facts and law they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. In these petitions, prayer has been made by the review petitioners for review of orders passed in the Writ Petitions whereby the petitions have been allowed and the respondents to the petitions have been directed to re-assign the seniority within the select list of the MPPSC batch of year 2006 as per the provisions contained in Rule (1)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 along with all consequential benefits.

2. The Writ Petitions had been preferred by the writ petitioners for quashing the impugned rejection orders and for directing the respondents to assign the seniority to the writ petitioners as per the order of merit or to determine the seniority amongst the cadre of Deputy Collectors in the MPPSC batch of year 2006. Prayer was also made for placement of writ petitioners' name in the gradation list of year 2011 in proper place and thereafter for correcting by placing the name in the subsequent gradation list issued till 2019 along with all consequential benefits. This Court relying upon the Full Bench decision in one of the case itself of Smt. Shalini Srivastava (WP No. 1206 of 2019) has allowed the writ petitions.

3. These Review Petitions have been preferred by the review petitioners primarily on the ground that by the orders under review, their

4 RP-287-2024

seniority has also been affected since they were senior to the writ petitioners. They were not joined as parties in the Writ Petitions and in their absence, the seniority inter se could not have been determined. The private respondents who were impleaded in the Writ Petitions had already retired or were not served and there was no representation on their part and their impleadment was also hardly of any significance. The Review Petitioners who were directly affected were not impleaded and not even some of them were joined in representative capacity even if their numbers were large for all of them to be joined individually. Since the review petitioners are senior to the writ petitioners, in their absence, no direction fixing the seniority could have been issued jeopardizing their interest.

4. Reply has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioners and it is submitted that in the Writ Petitions, two affected persons were made parties who could very well represent the review petitioners but they did not enter appearance and chose not to file their reply. Once statutory rules have been interpreted by this Court then it will be equally applicable to all the parties. The Full Bench has decided the controversy regarding determination of seniority hence if relying upon the Full Bench decisions, order have been passed in the Writ Petitions, the same do not warrant any review. It is not open for the review petitioners to contend anything against the judgment of the Full Bench. In any case, the review petitioners are recruits of subsequent batch of the select list prepared by MPPSC therefore they cannot claim to be senior to the writ petitioners. The review petitions hence deserve to be dismissed.

5 RP-287-2024

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. The review petitioners contend themselves to be senior to the writ petitioners. Though the said fact has been controverted by the writ petitioners but that would be a matter to be adjudicated upon facts of individual cases but for the present, the contention of the review petitioners that they are senior to the writ petitioner merits consideration.

7. From the record of the Writ Petitions it is observed that two persons were impleaded as respondents by the writ petitioners who, as per them, were effected persons. However, as has been pointed out by the review petitioners one of them Mr. Bharat Bhushan Gangele, who was impleaded as respondent to the petition has already retired. One more person Mr. Rohan Saxena was impleaded as a party but from the record, it does not appear that any notice was served upon him. Reply was filed only on behalf of the State Government representing all the respondents which could not have been done. Thus, there was no effective representation on part of the private respondents as impleaded in the Writ Petitions which came to be heard and decided without proper and effective impleadment of necessary parties.

8. In Indu Shekhar Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 129, it has been held by the Apex Court that in absence of necessary parties, question of inter se seniority cannot be decided. It was held as under:-

6 RP-287-2024 "56. There is another aspect of the matter. The appellants herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority. (See Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. [(1984) 4 SCC 251 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 704 : AIR 1985 SC 167] ) In Ram Janam Singh [(1994) 2 SCC 622 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 716 : (1994) 27 ATC 166] this Court held: (SCC p.

627, para 10).

"It is now almost settled that seniority of an officer in service is determined with reference to the date of his entry in the service which will be consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Of course, if the circumstances so require a group of persons can be treated a class separate from the rest for any preferential or beneficial treatment while fixing their seniority. But, whether such group of persons belong to a special class for any special treatment in matters of seniority has to be decided on objective consideration and on taking into account relevant factors which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Normally, such classification should be by statutory rule or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The far-reaching implication of such rules need not be impressed because they purport to affect the seniority of persons who are already in service."... "

9. In Prabodh Verma and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (1984) 4 SCC 251, the Apex Court held that since the affected persons were not made parties not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, the matter could not have been decided in their absence. It was held as under:-

"28. The real question before us, therefore, is the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the Sangh case [1979 All LJ 178] . Before we address ourselves to this question, we would like to point out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable, defects. The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties -- not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be

7 RP-287-2024 vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties."

10. In Vijay Kumar Kaul and Others Vs. Union of India and others, (2012) 7 SCC 610, the Apex Court held as under:-

"36. Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Kumar and others were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over the factum that they are senior to the appellants and have been conferred the benefit of promotion to the higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult to grant.

37. In this context we may refer with profit to the decision in Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006) 8 SCC 129 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1916 : AIR 2006 SC 2432] wherein it has been held thus :

(SCC p. 151, para 56).

56. There is another aspect of the matter. The appellants herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority."

11. In State of Uttaranchal Vs. Madan Mohan Joshi, (2008) 6 SCC 797, the Apex Court held as under:-

"16. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, proceeded on the basis as to what would constitute a substantive appointment. The decisions of this Court, whereupon strong reliance has been placed by the High Court in arriving at its conclusion may not be of much significance but what is significant is that in the writ petition even Savita (Mohan) Dhondyal and others who lose their seniority in

8 RP-287-2024 the event writ petition was to be allowed, were not impleaded as parties. They, in our opinion, should have been impleaded as parties in the writ application. Savita (Mohan) Dhondyal and others, if the writ petition is allowed, would suffer civil consequences. Inter se seniority may not be a fundamental right, but is a civil right. (See State of U.P. v. Dinkar Sinha [(2007) 10 SCC 548 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 38 : (2007) 7 Scale 8] .) The respective rights of seniority of the parties, thus, required determination in their presence."

12. The review petitioners contend themselves to be senior to the writ petitioners. However, they were not impleaded as parties in the Writ Petitions. The two private individuals who were impleaded in the Writ Petitions had already retired and was not served respectively hence there was no effective representation on part of the persons whose seniority has been affected by the orders under review. The review petitioners hence cannot be said to have been represented even in representative capacity. In absence of their impleadment, no order in respect of their seniority could have been passed. There is hence an error apparent on the face of record having been committed by this Court in passing the orders under review, which thus deserve to be reviewed/recalled.

13. Consequently, the Review Petitions deserve to be and are consequently allowed and the orders passed in the Writ Petitions are hereby recalled and the Writ Petitions are restored to their original number for hearing on merits.

14. Let a signed copy of this order be kept in the record of all the review petitions.

9 RP-287-2024 (PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE VD