Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rammilan Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 5th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1417 of 2024
RAMMILAN LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manan Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Priyank Shandilya - Panel Lawyer for the respondents / State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"7.1. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to
directing the respondents to take appropriate steps
in a time bound manner to give appointment to the
on the post of Panchayat Karmi, Ajnor with all
consequential benefits in the interest of justice.
7.2. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2023
(Annexure-P/7) passed by respondent no. 4 in the
interest of justice.
7.3. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to pay salary and all
grant consequential benefits to the petitioner in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
relation to his appointment as Panchayat Karmi
from the initial date of selection.
7.4. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents Authority to grant compensation for
causing hardship to the petitioner and to award the
cost of the petition.
7.5. Issue any other direction / order, which this
Hon'be Court may deem fit and proper looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case.
7.6. To issue writ in the nature of Certiorari
quashing the order impugned dated 7.2.2024
(Annexure-P/9) passed by respondent no. 4 and
further be pleased to direct the respondents to
allow the petitioner to join on the post of
Panchayat Karmi, Ajnor with all consequential
benefits in the interest of justice.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Panchayat and Rural
Development Department of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal issued a guideline
on 13.8.2007 for recruitment of Panchayat Karmi. The petitioner along
with other candidates applied for the post of Panchayat Karmi. However,
in gross violation of guideline dated 13.8.2007, the respondents selected
one Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain who was not even the local resident. The
petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.No.2457/2008 on 22.2.2008
seeking quashment of resolution dated 25.8.2007 and also seeking
quashment of the appointment letter dated 25.8.2007 issued in favour of
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was
finally disposed of vide order dated 17.1.2020 with a liberty to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
petitioner to avail the alternative and efficacious remedy observing that if
such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from
today, then the same will be considered and decided by the authority in
accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months
from the date of its filing. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under
Section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam
read with Rule 5 of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules,
1999 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tikamgarh which was
registered as Case No.0001/A-89/2021-22. The said appeal was decided
vide order dated 15.5.2023 observing that the petitioner should have been
granted appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi. Thereafter, another
letter dated 15.9.2023 was issued by the Director, Panchayat Raj -
respondent no. 2 pointing out the fact that as Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain was
not found to be local resident, therefore, he was removed from the post of
Panchayat Karmi and the petitioner's case be considered for grant of
appointment in question in terms of the order dated 15.5.2023. The
petitioner shown his willingness to join the post in question and he
approached the authorities in May, 2023 but the authorities have refused
to give joining to the petitioner. Thereafter, several representations were
made by the petitioner on 21.8.2023, 6.9.2023, 8.9.2023, 3.10.2023 and
27.10.2023 for issuance of appointment order to the petitioner but of no
consequence. After representation having been submitted by the
petitioner, by communication dated 15.12.2023 a guidance was sought
from the Director-cum-Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Directorate /
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
respondent no. 2 pointing out the fact that there are no posts lying vacant
for OBC candidate and already 135 Gram Panchayat Secretaries are
working against the sanctioned 88 posts and in such circumstances, how
the case of the petitioner can be considered. In pursuance to the same, a
letter dated 2.1.2024 (Annexure -P/8) written by respondent no. 2 to the
respondent no. 4 Chief Executive Officer, Jila Pachayat, Tikamgarh to
carry out the proceedings in accordance with law. Thereafter, the CEO
had passed an order on 7.2.2024 considering the fact that since there are
no posts lying vacant under the OBC category, no appointment can be
extended to the petitioner and closed the proceedings vide order dated
7.2.2024.
3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the authorities have
not considered the fact that the appeal of the petitioner was allowed on
15.5.2023 and there was a specific observation regarding grant of
appointment to the petitioner but the said order has not been complied
with till date. The said order has not been put to challenge anywhere and
thus, has attained the finality; therefore, the authorities are having no
right to deny the claim of the petitioner.
4. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the authorities
reiterating the same facts. They are not disputing the factual position up
to passing of an order in appeal by the S.D.O. (Revenue) on 15.5.2023.
However, it is pointed out that earlier the recruitment proceeding was
initiated in the year 2007 and at the relevant time, Panchayat Karmi
Yojna 1995 was in existence. The Yojna has been repealed and thereafter,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
there are no other posts for Backward category in district Tikamgarh,
therefore, instructions were sought from the Director / Assistant
Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Directorate, Bhopal. However, after
seeking reply from the Directorate, they have proceeded in the matter and
have closed the proceedings as far as the case of the petitioner is
concerned. They have considered Clause 11 of the Madhya Pradesh
Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary (Recruitment and
Condition of Service) Rule, 2011. It is submitted that as there was no
direction given by the Court for a considerable period and the writ
petition filed in the year 2008 was disposed of on 17.1.2020. However,
the Appellate Authority has found the petitioner to be entitled for grant of
compassionate appointment, but due to the fact that the recruitment drive
was initiated in the year 2007 and the consideration of the case of the
petitioner was made in the year 2025, therefore, there is no possibility of
reconsidering the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment to the
post of Panchayat Secretary as the earlier Act has already been repealed,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the record it is an admitted position that in
pursuance to the recruitment drive initiated for appointment to the post of
Panchayat Secretaries, the petitioner and others participated in the year
2007 and the petitioner was not selected. The selection of other
incumbent namely Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain was put to challenge by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
petitioner by filing a writ petition in the year 2008 itself which was
disposed of on 17.1.2020 with the following observation :-
"Writ petition is disposed off with liberty to the
petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. If such an
appeal is filed by the petitioner within a period of 4
weeks from today, then the same will be
considered and decided by the authority
accordance with law expeditiously, preferably
within a period of 6 months from the date of its
filing."
7. In pursuance to the aforesaid observations, the appeal was preferred
by the petitioner before the S.D.O. (Revenue) which was allowed on
15.5.2023. Operative para 9 is as under :-
"9. मेरे ारा करण म संल न द तावेजॲ का गहन
अवलोकन व पिरशीलन िकया गया िजससे पाया गया िक
अपीलाथ रामिमलन लोधी तनय ी भगवत लोधी िनवासी
अजनौर के ारा पंचायत कम की िनयुि त वष 2007-
08 के समय ाम पंचायत अजनौर म अपना आवेदन प
डाला गया था। ाम पंचायत के ताव िदन क
25.08.2007 म कुल 21 आवेदन शािमल हुये थे
िजसम 4 न बर पर अपीलाथ के नाम का उ लेख है।
िजसके 65.4 ितशत अंक ह। ितशत के आधार पर
थम न बर 79.84 ितशत अंक के साथ संजीव कुमार
जैन, ि तीय न बर पर ितभा बडकुल, 67.21 ित ेत,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
तृतीय थान पर अिमत जैन, 65.8 ितशत एवं चतुथ
थान पर अपीलाथ 65.4 ितशत अंक दश ये गये ह।
इनम से थम, ि तीय टीकमगढ़ के नगर पािलका वाड
न बर 5 के िनवासी है िजनका नाम मतदाता सूची
कम क 100 एवं 102 पर नाम अंिकत है जो चाहर के
िनवासी ह अजनीर के नहॴ है। ाम पंचायत थम
उ रवादी को पद से पृथक कर चुकी है। जबिक
अपीलाथ 65.4 ितशत अंकॲ के साथ थानीय िनवासी
है जो म. .शासन, पंचायत एवं ामीण िवकास िवभाग,
मं ालय, व लभ भवन, भोपाल के प क क/पी.सी./पं.-
4/2582 िदन क 13.08.2007 के अनुसार ाम पंचायत
अजनौर के पंचायतकम की िनयुि त हेतु "पा
उ मीदवारॲ की मूल अहता थानीय की पा ता रखता है
िक तु त समय थानीय व िपछड़ा वग से उ मी ार होने
पर भी िनयुि त नहॴ दी गई थी। "तृतीय थान पर
अिमत कुमार जैन जो सामा य ेणी के ह जबिक शासन
के िविध िनदशॲ व िनयमानुसार अनुसूिचत जाित /
अनुसूिचत जनजाित, िपछडावग एवं थानीय उ मी ार को
ाथिमकता के आधार पर चयन िकए जाने के िनदश
थे। शासन के प कम क / पी.सी./पं. -4/2582
िदन क 13.08.2007 के अनुसार चतुथ थान पर
अपीलाथ रामिमलन तनय भागवत लोधी ही इस भत
िकया म पा ता की ेणी म आते ह तथा ाम पंचायत
अजनौर की बैठक के ताव िदन क 20.05.2008 के
अनुसार संजीव कुमार जैन के थानीय िनवासी न होने
के कारण उ ह पद से हटाया जा चुका है एवं पद
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
वतमान म िर त भी है। उपरो त आधार पर अपीलाथ
के ारा तुत अपील की वीकारता के साथ "माननीय
उच यायालय जबलपुर के िनदश के पिरपालन म
उभयप ॲ को वण कर ा त द तावेजॲ के आधार पर
"अपीलाथ को ाम पंचायत अजनौर म पंचायतकम पर
िनयुि की जाना िविधसंगत है।
आदेश पािरत एवं उ ोिषत।"
8. The appellate authorities found the petitioner to be more
meritorious candidate as well as the fact that as Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain
was not the local resident and, therefore, he was removed from the
service. The S.D.O. has pointed out that the post is lying vacant which is
reflected from the order dated 15.5.2023. The said order has not been put
to challenge anywhere and thus, has attained the finality. The petitioner's
claim has not been considered owing to the fact that the Panchayat Raj
Yojna, 1995 has been repealed in the year 2011. However, the said
ground cannot be taken note of by the authorities by rejecting the claim of
the petitioner for the reason that the appellate authority has allowed the
appeal of the petitioner and has found him entitled for being appointed to
the post in question. The petitioner has continuously challenged the
action of the authorities and it is not a case where the petitioner was
sleeping over his rights just because there is a delay in deciding the case
of the petitioner that cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner to his
legitimate claim.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar vs.
Union of India and others reported in (2024) 3 SCC 563 has
considered the fact of delay due to pendency of the case and has held as
under :-
"21. In public law proceedings, when it is realised
that the prayer in the writ petition is unattainable
due to passage of time, constitutional courts may
not dismiss the writ proceedings on the ground of
their perceived futility. In the life of litigation,
passage of time can stand both as an ally and
adversary. Our duty is to transcend the constraints
of time and perform the primary duty of a
constitutional court to control and regulate the
exercise of power or arbitrary action. By taking the
first step, the primary purpose and object of public
law proceedings will be subserved.
22. The second step relates to restitution. This
operates in a different dimension. Identification
and application of appropriate remedial measures
poses a significant challenge to constitutional
courts, largely attributable to the dual variables of
time and limited resources.
23. The temporal gap between the impugned
illegal or arbitrary action and their subsequent
adjudication by the courts introduces complexities
in the provision of restitution. As time elapses, the
status of persons, possession, and promises
undergoes transformation, directly influencing the
nature of relief that may be formulated and
granted.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
24. The inherent difficulty in bridging the time gap
between the illegal impugned action and restitution
is certainly not rooted in deficiencies within the
law or legal jurisprudence but rather in systemic
issues inherent in the adversarial judicial process.
The protracted timeline spanning from the filing of
a writ petition, service of notice, filing of counter
affidavits, final hearing, and then the eventual
delivery of judgment, coupled with subsequent
appellate procedures, exacerbates delays.
26. It is in this reality and prevailing
circumstance that we must formulate an
appropriate system for preserving the rights of the
parties till the final determination takes place. In
the alternative, we may also formulate a reasonable
equivalent for restitution of the wrongful action.
27. Returning to the facts of the present case, in
exercise of our primary duty, we have set aside the
action of the respondents as being illegal and
arbitrary. In furtherance of our duty to provide a
reasonable measure for restitution, we have
explored the possibility of directing the Institute to
appoint the appellant as a primary teacher in any
other school run by them. However, it seems that
the only primary school run by the Institute is the
one for which they sought to fill vacancies and it is
closed since 2023. In this situation, we must
consider an alternative restitutory measure in the
form of monetary compensation."
10. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, then it is clear that the petitioner is not
at fault. He has immediately challenged the orders passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12081
authorities appointing the other incumbent by filing a writ petition in the
year 2008 itself. However, the writ petition was kept pending and it was
only decided in the year 2020. In pursuance to the directions given the
writ Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent
authority. The appeal was allowed as pointed out hereinabove. The said
order has not been put to challenge anywhere. The said order further
points out that there is vacancy in the department.
11. Under these circumstances, the argument advanced by the
respondents that as earlier Scheme 1995 has been repealed by Scheme
2011, the case of the petitioner could not be considered, is per se illegal
and contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme
Court as pointed out in the aforesaid case. Under these circumstances, the
following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid
case, the authorities are directed to dwell upon to consider the case of the
petitioner for grant of appointment in terms of order dated 15.5.2023 to
the post in question.
12. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 45 days
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE,
JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78033E5FF10402B19143AD99,
cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
Date: 2025.03.24 18:17:11 +05'30'
