Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaptan Jaypal Singh Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 16 January, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 WP-1446-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1431 of 2019
SHIVNATH SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 6808 of 2018
KAPIL KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8220 of 2018
SHRINIWAS SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 20-01-2025
17:17:32
2 WP-1446-2019
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 11381 of 2018
GAJRAJ SINGH LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 13539 of 2018
BANE SINGH RATHORE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23893 of 2018
BANWARILAL KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 1443 of 2019
RAJESH KUMAR OJHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 20-01-2025
17:17:32
3 WP-1446-2019
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 1446 of 2019
KAPTAN JAYPAL SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 1452 of 2019
DEVI PRASAD KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 2448 of 2019
JAI SINGH RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 3216 of 2019
SHIVRAJ SINGH MEENA AND OTHERS
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 20-01-2025
17:17:32
4 WP-1446-2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 3221 of 2019
DEVENDRA KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 12665 of 2019
MANOJ JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 6909 of 2022
VIJAY SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 21243 of 2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 20-01-2025
17:17:32
5 WP-1446-2019
VIRENDRA SINGH KUSHWAH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudha Gautam - Learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Heard finally with the consent of parties.
2. As the identical controversy is involved in all these cases, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being heard and decided
by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts of
W.P. No.1413/2019 are taken into consideration.
3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:
" ( i ) That, respondents be directed to
grant the appointment to the petitioners on
the post of Shala Samvida Teacher Verg-3 in
light of the decision of Hon'ble Division
Bench and extend same benefit as given to
the similarly situated persons with all
consequential benefits from due date
including arrears with interest.
(ii) That, the other relief doing justice
including cost be awarded."
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have challenged the
inaction of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners to the post of
Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III even though they have duly qualified the
Eligibility Examination, 2008 conducted by Madhya Pradesh Professional
6 WP-1446-2019
Examination Board, Bhopal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the point involved in
these cases is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Gwalior Bench of
this Court in the case of Manmohan Mathur and others Vs. State of M.P.
decided on 30.07.2012 in W.P. No.1102/2010 and other connected writ
petitions. While allowing the said writ petitions, the learned Single Judge at
Gwalior Bench had passed the following order:
"12. Consequently, applying the ratio of judgment of
Principal Seat, these petitions are also allowed. The
impugned order Annexure P-2 dated 05.10.2009 is set
aside. The principal Seat in the operative portion held as
under:-
"11.The amendment made in the Rules which
was published in the gazette, dated 4.1.2010.
It is well settled in law that prima facie
every amendment is prospective unless there
is clear indication in statute or rule that it
would apply with retrospective effect. It is
not discernible from the amendment that it is
retrospective in nature. Therefore, the
amended rule would not apply retrospectively
to the proceedings for selection which were
already completed. For this additional reason
also, the action of the respondents in
excluding the names of the petitioners from
consideration cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law.
12. In the result, the Circular (Annexure P/6)
is quashed. The respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioners for
appointment on the post of contract teacher
grade-3 in view of the unamended criteria
and in the light of Annexure P-5, and if the
petitioners are found otherwise eligible for
appointment; to issue order of appointment"."
6. The said order passed by learned Single Judge
was challenged before the Division Bench in Writ
Appeal No.185/2013, which was also dismissed vide
7 WP-1446-2019
order dated 06.05.2013. Thereafter, an SLP was filed by
the State Government which was also dismissed. Thus,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in a Writ
Petition has attained the finality.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners being similarly situated person, the same
benefit should also be extended to them.
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the said writ
petitions are allowed in similar terms which has been
passed in the case of Manmohan Mathur (supra) and
respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioners in light of Manmohan Mathur's case within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order passed today and if the
petitioners are found fit, then the appointment orders
should be issued in their favour immediately thereafter.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners being
similarly situated persons to the petitioners in W.P.No.5203/2018 and other
connected petitions, similar benefit may also be extended to them.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer
and contended that the procedure adpoted for conduct of Eligibility
Examination 2008 was not in consonance with the then existing M.P.
Samvida Shala Shikshak Recruitment Rules, 2005 and as such Rule 7-A in
aforesaid rules was inserted by Notification dated 4.1.2010 to accommodate
those candidates who qualify eligibility examination 2008. But petitioners
did not fulfill criteria of sub rule (2) of Rule 7-A of Amended Rules, 2010
and as such could not be appointed on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak
Varg 3 and as such prays for dismissal of these petitions.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From perusal of the record it is evident that the order passed by this
Court in W.P.No.5203/2018 (Gwalior Bench) was challenged by the State
before the Division Bench of this Court by filing W.A. No.1818/2018 and
8 WP-1446-2019
other connected Writ Appeals. A Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 09.09.2022 dismissed the said Writ Appeals by affirming the order
dated 02.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5203/2018
(Rajkumar Dandotiya and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) and other
connected Writ Petitions.
10. The State Government had also preferred SLP bearing SLP (Civil)
Diary No.36560/2024 against the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A. No.1611/2018 and other connected Writ Appeals before the
Hon'ble Apex Court. Even the said SLP preferred by the State Government
has also been dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2025.
11. WSince the controversy involved in the present set of writ petitions is
similar to the petitioners in W.P.No.5203/2018, therefore, in the considered
opinion of this court, these writ petitions are allowed and disposed of in
similar terms which has been passed in the case of Manmohan Mathur
(supra) and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioenrs in
the lith of Manmohan Mathur's case within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and if the
petitioenrs are found fit, then the appointment orders should be issued in
their favour immediately thereafter.
12. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petitions are finally disposed
of.
