Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deendayal Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5951
1 WP-29700-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 29700 of 2023
DEENDAYAL SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri V.C. Rai- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Sharma - Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order of rejection of
representation for regularization Annexure P/10 dated 05.01.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the case was
scrutinized and by the scrutiny list dated 09-08-2012 (Annexure P-6) as many as
1658 daily rated employees were found to be ineligible as their appointment were
found to be illegal appointments. The name of the petitioner finds place at serial
no. 921 of the said list whereas the name of Ajay Kumar Shrivastava finds place at
serial No. 920 and the same reasons are assigned for both the persons i.e.
objections as per note number 8, 9, 11, 12. It is contended that the said Ajay
Kumar Shrivastava after filing various other cases before this Court ultimately
filed W.P. No. 4908/2024 wherein this Court has allowed the writ petition. It is
further contended that another person Sanjay Kumar Pandey who was also in the
same list has filed W.P. No. 18917/2024 which has already been decided by this
Court on 12.08.2024.
3. In W.P. No. 4908/2024, this Court has considered the entire facts of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5951
2 WP-29700-2023
case in detail has ordered regularization of Ajay Kumar Shrivastava and thereafter
in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey (W.P. No. 18917/2024) the said order has
considered in detailed and the following directions were passed.
"The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/10 dated 24.11. 2023
whereby representation of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.
2. The case of the petitioner for regularization was considered by the respondents in terms
of the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others
Vs. Uma Devi 2006(4)SCC 1, and the circular dated 16.05.2007 issued in pursuance to the
said circular and after making scrutiny by order Annexure P/5 08.01.2016. The petitioner
was intimated that his appointment has been found to be illegal and not irregular and cannot
be regularized.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 4330/2016, which was decided vide order
dated 02.05.2023 directing the respondents to take decision in the matter afresh in terms of
the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No. 20338/2015 (Smt. Mangla Sharma Vs. State
of M.P.).
4. Now the said consideration has been made by Annexure P/10 and it has been
communicated to the petitioner that his appointment is found to be illegal on account of two
grounds. Firstly, that no appointment order was given to the petitioner and secondly that the
reservation roster was not followed at the time of the appointment.
5. The petitioner has brought on record the appointment order Annexure P/1 dated
26.03.1999 whereby he has been induct as labourer in PWD Division-II Shahdol.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the clarification issued by the
State Government vide clarification circular dated 08.02.2008 as per clause 8 of which the
non following of reservation roster is said to be irregularity and not illegality. The learned
counsel for the petitioner had also pointed out the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by this
Court in W.P. No. 4908/2024 in which case also a similar rejection order was passed by the
respondents dated 06.11.2023. The petitioner has pointed out that the writ petition filed by
the petitioner W.P. No. 4330/2016 was decided along with W.P. No. 8875/2015 filed by
one Ajay Kumar Shrivastava and who also suffers similar rejection order thereafter by the
respondents. In the case of said Ajay Kumar Shrivastava he filed W.P. No. 4908/2024
before this Court and this Court on 06.05.2024 has quashed the rejection order and directed
to extend the benefit of regularization to the post. The petitioner claims to be similarly
situated.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5951
3 WP-29700-2023
7. Considering the aforesaid, the two reasons assigned in the order Annexure P/10 seem
to be flimsy as the petitioner has placed on record an appointment order and the
clarification of the State itself provides that non following of reservation roster in the matter
of engagement of daily rated employee is not illegality but irregularity.
8. Resutltantly, the petition is disposed of by setting aside the order Annexure P/10 dated
24.11.2023. The respondents are directed to redecide the case of the petitioner for
regularization and examine his parity with the petitioner of W.P. No. 4908/2024. If the
petitioner is found to be at par with the petitioner in W.P. No. 4908/2024 he shall be
granted the same benefit as granted to the said petitioner.
9. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. "
4. Consequently, the present petition is also disposed of by setting aside
the order Annexure P/10 dated 05.01.2021. The respondents are directed to re-
decide the case of the petitioner for regularization and examine his parity with the
petitioner of W.P. No. 4908/2024. If the petitioner is found to be at par, then he
shall be granted the same benefit as has been granted to said petitioner.
5. Let the exercise be completed within a period of two months from the
date of production of copy of this order.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
