Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28671
1 WP-5387-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5387 of 2025
RAJENDRA PRASAD VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for the
Respondent/State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the petition
involving identical issues has been decided by this Court. In Writ Petition
No.29871 of 2022 decided on 31.08.2024, this Court has passed the
following order:-
"Since the present petitions involved identical facts and
there is similitude of grounds, they are being decided by this
common order. For the sake of convenience facts are taken from
WP No. 29871of 2022.
2. WP No.29871 of 2022 has been filed seeking the relief of
appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and
challenging the order (Annexure P-3) denying the claim of the
petitioner on the ground of an amendment in the rules carried out
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28671
2 WP-5387-2025
vide Gazette notification dated 21.03.2018 and made effective
from 01.01.2008.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners
had appeared in the recruitment test conducted for Gurjis
and instructors working in non-formal education guarantee centres
for absorption to the post of Samvida Shala Sikshak Grade-III and
they qualified the test. The similarly situated employees
approached this Court and this Court in the case of Anil Kumar
Bhatt Vs. State of M.P. (WP No. 91/2011) decided on 21.02.2012
so also in the case of Manmohan Mathur and Ors. Vs. State of
M.P. & Ors. (WP No. 1102/2010) had passed a detailed direction
in the matter of similarly situated employees. However, when the
cases of petitioners were put to consideration in the terms of the
said judgment the State rejected their cases on the ground of
subsequent amendment in the Rules which is enforced from
retrospective effect i.e. 01.01.2008.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.
23966- 23968 of 2022 (Smita Shrivastava Vs. The State of M.P. &
Ors.) passed in 03.05.2024 wherein the Supreme Court taking note
of the dispute being decided from time to time before the High
Court and also took note of the subsequent amendment dated
21.03.2018 made retrospectively effective from 01.01.2008 has
heavily criticized the action of the State Government in issuing the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28671
3 WP-5387-2025
said amendment and held that the said amendment is a malafide
action in an attempt to circumvent the order passed by the High
Court by hook or by crook so as to prevent the appellants and
their counterparts therein of their lawful claims of their
appointment. The Supreme Court 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 reap 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 recognising 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. The learned counsel for the State has only raised an
objection that whether the petitioners are similarly situated needs
to be examined.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28671
4 WP-5387-2025
6. Evidently the cases of the petitioners have been rejected
by the State authorities by order (Annexure P-3) on the ground
that on the ground of subsequent amendment dated 21.03.2018
with effect from 01.01.2008. The Supreme Court has already held
the said amendment to be a malafide action and an attempt to
circumvent the order passed by the High Court and granted relief
to the employees who are before the Supreme Court. The
petitioner is certainly entitled to the same benefit.
7. Resultantly, this petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to respondents to consider the cases of petitioners
afresh ignoring the amendment notification dated 21.03.2018
which has been held to be unlawful by the Supreme Court and also
examine the parity of the petitioners with the case of Smita
Shrivastava (supra) who was petitioner before the Supreme Court
and if the petitioners are found to be at par then exactly
similar benefits shall be allowed to the petitioners without any
discrimination whatsoever. The impugned order (Annexure P-3) is
set aside. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two
months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
8. Consequently, the WP No. 9229 of 2018, WP No. 14815
of 2018, WP No. 21293 of 2018, WP No. 24496 of 2018, WP No.
28742 of 2018 and WP No. 6146 of 2022 are allowed in above
terms by quashing orders impugned therein and R.P. No. 1502 of
2018 is dismissed."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28671
5 WP-5387-2025
2. Consequently, the present petition is also disposed off in terms of
order dated 31.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.29871 of 2022. The said order will
apply in the case of the present petitioner also mutatis mutandis with full
force. Let exercise be completed within two months from date of this order.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
