Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayendra Sing vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4254
1 WP-4444-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 18 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4444 of 2025
JAYENDRA SING AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devraj Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner through VC.
Ms.Mradula Sen, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
By way of instant writ petition, that the petitioners are claiming the benefit
of the judgment passed by the Apex Court. The controversy involved in this case
is that the petitioners appeared in the recruitment test 2008 conducted for Guruji
and instructors working in non-formal education guarantee centre for absorption to
the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III and they have been qualified for the
test but the respondents are denying the appointment of the petitioners on the
ground of an amendment in the recruitment rules carried out vide Gazette
notification dated 21.03.2018 and made effective prospective from 01.01.2008.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of the petition in
the light of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Lalit
Narayan Joshi Vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.29170/2024 dated
03.10.2024.
3. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4254
2 WP-4444-2025
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 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.
5. 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4254
3 WP-4444-2025
6. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that the case of the
petitioner 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 petitioner by examining the parity of the petitioner with
the case of Smita Shrivastava and if the case of the petitioner is at par with the
case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) then the same benefits shall be granted to the
petitioner 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.
8. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of .
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
