Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Chandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3233
1 WP-4240-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4240 of 2025
JAGDISH CHANDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhag Mal Porwal - advocate for the petitioners.
Dr. Amit Bhatia appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
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-III and an examination was conducted for
the said purpose. The petitioner's claim that he had appeared in the
examination conducted in the year 2008 and had qualified the said
examination. He placed reliance on the score-card placed on record with the
petition.
2. It is the further case of the petitioner that earlier also the petitioner
had filed a writ petition before this Court and the said petition was disposed
of with direction to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment
in the case of Manmohan Mathur Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3233
2 WP-4240-2025
No.1102/2010), which was thereafter followed by other Benches of this
Court.
3. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the State Government
had gone in appeal to the Supreme Court against one such order and in
S.L.P. (Civil) No.23966-23968/2022 (Smita Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P.
and others), the Supreme Court has allowed the appeals of similarly situated
employees.
4. Upon perusal of the judgment (Annexure-P/8) 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 high
handed approach of the State Government and its officials has driven the
appellant to a series of prolonged litigations which were evidently not out of
her choice. In spite of having passed the selection exam held for the post of
Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III way back on 31st August, 2008, the
appellant did not rep the fruits of her success. The State Government took
the shield of an amended rule i.e. Rule 7-A, issued on 29th 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 effective from 1st January, 2008 i.e. prior to the date of
recruitment. This was clearly a mala fide 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."
5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3233
3 WP-4240-2025
of the petitioners has to be considered by ignoring the subsequent
amendment dated 31.03.2018 made effective from 01.01.2008.
6. 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 and if the case of the
petitioners are 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 of
certified copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
krjoshi29170
