[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tiku Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36810
1 WP-48438-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 48438 of 2025
TIKU SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhag Mal Porwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Amit Bhatia -GA appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
ORDER
Counsel for the petitioners 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 this petition 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 they had appeared in the
examination conducted in the year 2008 and had qualified the said
examination. They placed reliance on the score-card placed on record with
the petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36810
2 WP-48438-2025
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that earlier also the
petitioners had filed a writ petition before this Court and the said petition was
disposed of with direction to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of
judgment in the case of 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 petitioners 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 other choice. In spite of having passed the
selection exam held for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak
Grade-III way back on 31 st August, 2008, the appellant did not
reap the, fruits ofher success. The State Government took- --the
shield of an amended the rule ie. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36810
3 WP-48438-2025
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 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 petitioners has to be considered in terms of the judgment of this Court in
the case of Man Mohan 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 petitioners by examining the parity of
the petitioners with the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) and if the case of
the petitioners is at par with the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra), then the
same benefits shall be granted to the petitioners as has been granted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra). Let the
action be taken within a period of two months from the date of production
certified copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
hk/
