Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munendra Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27665
1 WP-37-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 26th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37 of 2015
MUNENDRA SINGH PARIHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajneesh Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vaaridhi Pathak - Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
ORDER
This is a petition assailing the order dated 06.08.2014 (Annexure-
P/1) by which, the petitioner's representation for engaging him as a daily
rated employee has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
herein was working as a daily rated employee. The petitioner
participated in the process of selection against the post of Forest Guard
in the year 2008. Later on, it was found that the mark-sheet of High
School which was submitted by the petitioner was forged, as a result of
which, services of the petitioner were terminated and the petitioner was
dismissed from service. The said dismissal is assailed by the petitioner in
W.P. No.2100/2011. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner
was prosecuted and eventually convicted as well. Against the judgement
of conviction, there is an appeal pending before this Court vide Cr.A.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27665
2 WP-37-2015
No.11407/2022. It is contended by the counsel that final hearing of the
appeal will take time, and therefore, the respondents ought to have
considered the petitioner's name for engaging him as a daily rated
employee.
3. It is contended by the counsel that there was recommendation of
Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.) dated 18.07.2012 (Annexure-P/4) and
despite the said recommendation, the claim of the petitioner has been
declined vide the impugned order. It is contended by the counsel that
even the process which was undertaken to find out the veracity of the
mark-sheet was also found to be fabricated which is evident from the
perusal of the documents brought on record along with the rejoinder. It is
thus, contended by the counsel that as the Criminal Appeal vide Cr.A.
No.11407/2022 is still pending, and as the dismissal order was based on
the judgment of conviction, the present petition deserves to be allowed
and the respondents be directed to engage the petitioner as a daily rated
employee in view of the recommendation of the D.F.O. dated
18.07.2012.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that it is undisputed that the petitioner has secured
appointment on the basis of a forged document. The petitioner was
prosecuted and eventually convicted as well. Upon conviction, the
services of the petitioner were terminated and the dismissal is under
challenge. Considering the entire circumstances, the Chief Conservator
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27665
3 WP-37-2015
of Forest, Forest Circle, Rewa has passed the impugned order dated
06.08.2014. The order passed, in absence of any infirmity does not
require any interference.
5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
6. Heard the submissions and perused the record.
7. A perusal of record reflects that the petitioner secured
appointment as Forest Guard and while securing the appointment, the
petitioner produced the mark-sheet of High School. The mark-sheet
upon its verification was found to be forged and accordingly, the
petitioner was prosecuted as well on the basis of the allegation of
producing a forged mark-sheet. The petitioner after a full-fledged trial
was convicted. The conviction was assailed by the petitioner by filing an
appeal vide Cr.A. No.11407/2022 before this Court and the said appeal
according to petition is still pending.
8. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming relief mainly on
the strength of the recommendation of the Divisional Forest Officer
(D.F.O.) dated 18.07.2012 (Annexure-P/4). A perusal of the
recommendation so submitted by the D.F.O, if perused carefully it would
reveal that, the D.F.O. while recommending the petitioner's name for his
engagement as a daily rated employee, did not deal with the previous
conduct of the petitioner of producing forged mark-sheet to secure
employment.
9. It is undisputed that on the basis of the said certificate only, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27665
4 WP-37-2015
petitioner secured appointment as a Forest Guard. Later on, the mark-
sheet upon enquiry was found to be forged. The petitioner was
prosecuted and eventually convicted as well. Therefore, taking into
consideration the above facts, the impugned order has been passed and
the Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Circle, Rewa has declined to
concur with the recommendation made by the Divisional Forest Officer
(D.F.O.) vide his communication dated 18.07.2012.
10. Considering the aforesaid impugned order clearly reveals that
there exist no provision to engage the petitioner as a daily rated
employee. Thus, in absence of any irregularity or illegality in the order,
no interference is warranted. The petitioner cannot claim engagement as
a daily rated employee as a matter of right.
11. With the aforesaid, this Court does not find any substance in
the petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
mn
