Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravendra Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15540
1 WP-10767-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10767 of 2025
RAVENDRA PRASAD PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Falgun Yadav - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - G.A. for the respondent - State.
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that they were working as Gurujis and
Instructors in non-formal education centers and Education Guarantees,
Shalas in the State of Madhya Pradesh. They cleared the test conducted for
absorption of the said Gurujis as Samivida Shala Shikshaks, but thereafter
they have not been absorbed as Samivida Shala Shikshak in the light of the
Amendment Notification of the State Government dated 21.03.2018, which
was made effective from 01.01.2008.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that issue has now been settled
by the Supreme Court and after judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court
has also considered the issue and has decided W.P. No.24496/2018 in the
case of similarly situated employees and the case of the petitioner also stands
at par.
3. In W.P. No.24496/2018 this Court passed the following order:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15540
2 WP-10767-2025
"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
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 nonformal 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 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15540
3 WP-10767-2025
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.
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."
4. The respondent shall examine the parity of the petitioner with the
aforesaid case and if the petitioners are found to be at par and qualified the
test conducted for the said purpose, then similar benefits be granted to the
petitioners. If they are not found to be at par, then reasoned and speaking
order be communicated to the petitioners, pointing out reason for not being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15540
4 WP-10767-2025
at par.
5. Let the exercise be completed within a period of two months.
6. Petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
