Ramprasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 449 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramprasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2025

Author: Subodh Abhyankar

Bench: Subodh Abhyankar

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12151




                                                                 1                               WP-16443-2025
                              IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                                                      ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2025
                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 16443 of 2025
                                                RAMPRASAD AND OTHERS
                                                        Versus
                                       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                              Shri Shobhag Mal Porwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
                              Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - G.A. for respondents/State.

                                                                     ORDER

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were Anudeshak in non-formal education centre run by the State Government and the State Government had framed a policy to give a chance to such Anudeshak and Guruji, working in the non-formal centres to be absorbed in the cadre of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and an examination was conducted for the said purpose. The petitioners' claim that they had appeared in the examination conducted in the year 2008 and had qualified the said

examination. They placed reliance on the score-card placed on record with the petition.

2. It is the further case of the petitioners that earlier also the petitioners had filed a writ petition before this Court and the said petition was disposed of with direction to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of judgment in the case of Manmohan Mathur Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No.1102/2010), which was thereafter followed by other Benches of this

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12151

2 WP-16443-2025 Court.

3. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government had gone in appeal to the Supreme Court against one such order and in S.L.P. (Civil) No.23966-23968/2022 (Smita Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others), the Supreme Court has allowed the appeals of similarly situated employees.

4. Upon perusal of the judgment (Annexure-P/8) passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Smita Shrivastava, it is seen that the Supreme Court has held that subsequent amendment dated 21.03.2018 making the amended rule effective from 01.01.2008 as a malafide action and an attempt to circumvent the order passed by the High Court by hook or crook. The

Supreme Court in Para No.8 of the aforesaid judgment 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 rep 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 recognizing 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. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that the case of the petitioners has to be considered in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Man Mohan Mathur and Anil Bhatt (W.P. No.91/2011) . The case of the petitioners has to be considered by ignoring the subsequent

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12151

3 WP-16443-2025 amendment dated 31.03.2018 made effective from 01.01.2008.

6. Consequently, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners by examining the parity of the petitioners with the case of Smita Shrivastava and if the case of the petitioners are at par with the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) then the same benefits shall be granted to the petitioners as has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) . Let the action be taken within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

7. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE

Bahar