Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sapna Jhunjhunwala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 WP-308-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 308 of 2016
(SMT. SAPNA JHUNJHUNWALA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
WP/19331/2016, WP/6345/2020
Dated : 07-02-2025
Shri John Mathew - Advocate for petitioner in W.P. No. 308 of
2016.
Shri Arpit Agarwal - Advocate for petitioner in W.P. No. 19331 of
2016.
Shri Ankit Tiwari - Advocate for petitioner in W.P. No. 6345 of
2020.
Shri Amit Seth - Addl. Advocate Genera assisted by Shri Anubhav
Jain - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Ashish Shroti - Advocate for Intervenor.
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Anshuman
Singh and Shri Rohan Harne Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri B.N. Mishra - Advocate for respondent No.1 in W.P. No.
6345 of 2020.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh - Advocate for respondent No.3 in W.P.
No. 6345 of 2020.
Shri John Mathew, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 308
of 2016 seeks adjournment on the ground that, office of arguing counsel
Shri Anil Khare, Sr. Advocate is on adjustment.
This concept of office being on adjustment is beyond
2 WP-308-2016
comprehension, because as we understand, engagement of a Senior
Counsel is for a particular case and his office cannot be said to be on
adjustment.
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned Sr. Advocate alongwith Shri Ashish
Shroti, Anshuman Singh, Shri Rohan Harne and Shri Amit Seth, learned
Addl. Advocate General assisted by Shri Anubhav Jain - Government
Advocate for the respondents takes a preliminary objection about the
maintainability of the petitions.
After going through the pleadings it is evident that, petitioners are
challenging the validity of the advertisement dated 23.11.2015 namely
M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment from Bar
Examination, 2016.
It is pointed out that, some of the petitioners had participated in
that examination and some had no remote connection. In this behalf,
law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G. Sharna
Vs. University of Lucknow (1976)3 SCC 585 is crystal clear wherein it
is held that "he seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee
and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it.
Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the
constitution of the committee". Similarly in the case of Virendra Kumar
Verma Vs. Public Service Commission Uttarakhand & Ors. (2011)1
SCC 150 in para 25, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the candidates
who participated in the selection process cannot challenged the validity
3 WP-308-2016
of the said selection process after appearing in the said selection process
and taking opportunity of being selected. Same is the ratio of law laid
down in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar & Ors.
(2007)8 SCC 100, wherein in para 18, it is held hat "18. ....... It is also
well-settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection
process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not
entitled to question the same".
Therefore, in the light of these judgments, learned counsel for the
petitioner is granted time to address the Court.
List this case after 04 weeks.
At this stage it is pointed out by Shri Anshuman Singh, that in
W.P. No. 19331 of 2016, after the selection is over, now petitioner is
challenging the minimum age limit prescribed for the selection.
It is submitted that, even that cannot be challenged and looked into
at this distance of time and this issue is already settled vide order dated
05.03.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in W.P.
No. 2163 of 2020 (Surjeet Singh Sikarwar Vs. High Court of M.P. &
Ors.) alongwith connected matters.
But with a view to facilitate time to the adjusted office of learned
Senior Advocate, case is adjourned.
In W.P. No. 6345 of 2020 Shri B.N. Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 takes serious objection to the locus of the petitioner to
file this writ petition.
4 WP-308-2016
Shri Ankit Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 6345
of 2020 submits that, petitioner being a Member of Bar Council is
challenging 25% quota earmarked for Lawyers to be recruited to the post
of Addl. District Judge (Entry Level) being violated is under challenged.
Shri Mishra disputes locus of the petitioner who claims himself to
be a Senior Advocate in the cause title of the writ petition, that what is
the locus of a Senior Advocate, because there is no mention of the fact
that he is filing this petition as a member of Bar Council. Even if he has
filed this petition as a Member of Bar Council then authorization of the
Bar Council is must. But even that is not available on record.
Shri Mishra further submitted that, in a service matter, PIL is not
maintainable, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. Vs. Jitendera Kumar Mishra &
Ors. (1998)7 SCC 273.
Let these objection be satisfied by the next date.
List these cases after four weeks.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
AR
