Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku.Dipti Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27986
1 WP-4109-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 4 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4109 of 2013
KU.DIPTI SAXENA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi -Senior Advocate with Shri Mohd. Amir
Khan - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Ekta Vyas - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
preferred by petitioners seeking following relief(s):
"(i) That, the impugned notice dated 24.05.2013 Annexure P/1 be
set aside.
(ii) That, consequential order (if any) may kindly be set aside.
(iii) That, it may be held that the appointments of the petitioners
are legal, valid and according to the Rules.
(iv) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to continue the
petitioners on the post of Staff Nurse on their respective places.
(v) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. An identical writ petition i.e. W.P.No.7000/2013 (Smt. Jyoti
Rathore Vs. State of M.P. & Others) has already been decided vide order
dated 08.09.2013 by Indore Bench of this Court. The order passed in Jyoti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27986
2 WP-4109-2013
Rathore (supra) reads as under:-
"1. Regard being had to the similar controversy involved in these
cases, they have been heard analogously together with the consent
of the parties and a common order is being passed in the matter.
Facts of Writ Petition No.7131/13 are narrated as under:-
2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition
being aggrieved by a notice of termination dated 24.5.13 issued by
the Directorate of Health Services, Satpuda Bhavan, Bhopal.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was
issued on 26.7.10 inviting applications for the post of Staff Nurse
and the advertisement was restricted only to the female candidates.
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Staff Nurse by an order
dated 20th September, 2010. It has been further stated that the
advertisement in question was subjected to a judicial scrutiny
before this Court in the case of Shajid Khan and Ors. Vs. State of
M.P. & ors (WP No.10550/10) and this Court has quashed the
advertisement in question. The petitioner has further stated that
after quashment of the advertisement, the matter has traveled to
the Division Bench and also to the Apex Court and the Division
Bench as well as the Apex Court has dismissed the Writ
Appeal/SLP preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The
contention of the petitioner is that now a notice for termination of
services has been issued to the petitioner and the same deserves to
be set aside. The petitioner has also stated before this Court that
she was not a party in the earlier round of litigation and therefore
as this Court in the earlier round of litigation while deciding WP
No. 10550/10 has not heard the petitioner, the show cause notice
issued to the petitioner by the State Government deserves to be set
aside. Other grounds have also been raised and it has been argued
that subsequently another advertisement has been issued and the
petitioner has been appointed afresh on the post of Staff Nurse and
therefore, there appears to be no justification on the part of the
respondents in proceeding ahead further in respect of impugned
termination notice dated 24.5.13.
4. On the other hand, learned GA has argued before this Court that
the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as the respondents are
left with no other option except to comply with the orders passed
by this Court in WP No.10550/10 (Shajid Khan and Ors. Vs. State
of M.P. & ors). Learned GA has also argued that the advertisement
issued by the State Government on 26.7.10 was quashed by this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27986
3 WP-4109-2013
Court, therefore, as the advertisement itself was quashed by this
Court, therefore, the selection and appointment of petitioner
deserves to be recalled as they have to comply with the orders
passed by the Division Bench as well as the order of the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record. The matter is being disposed of with the consent of the
parties at the motion hearing stage itself.
6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that an advertisement
was issued on 26.7.10 inviting applications only from female
candidates for the post of Staff Nurse. In the earlier round of
litigation, this Court in in the case of Shajid Khan (supra) in
paragraph 13 to 16 has held as under :-
"13. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered
by the Apex Court, there is no manner of doubt that
there cannot be 100% reservation in favour of the
women candidates as the same is against the statutory
provisions, resultantly, the impugned advertisement is
hereby quashed. The respondents are permitted to issue
a fresh advertisement strictly keeping in view the
provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 1989. It is
needless to mention that the respondents while issuing a
fresh advertisement shall reflect the qualification
prescribed under the Schedule 3 of the Rules of 1989
and shall also be free to reserve the posts upto extent of
30% as provided under the provisions of M.P. Civil
Services (Special Provision for Appointment of
Women) Rules 1997.
14. As this Court has allowed the present writ petition,
the contempt petition No.651/10 arising out of the
interim order passed in the present case also deserves to
be disposed of. The contempt petition was filed for non-
compliance of the order dated 28.03.2010 and notices
were issued by this Court on 23.09.2010. A reply has
been filed in the contempt petition by one Dr. S.K.
Meena and the reply reveals that the respondents have
not complied the interim order passed by this Court as
the advertisement was issued exclusively for
appointment of the women candidates. This Court was
aware of the advertisement issued by the
respondents/State and has passed an interim order on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27986
4 WP-4109-2013
23.08.2010 to permit the petitioners to participate in the
process of selection and with a defiant attitude a reply
was filed in the contempt petition, justifying the
disobedience.
15. It is really unfortunate that in spite of there being an
order passed by this Court on 23.08.2010, the
respondents have not permitted the petitioners to
participate in the process of selection and on the
contrary, has offered a justification.
16. This Court as has allowed the main writ petition
and. therefore, no further orders are required to be
passed in the contempt petition. The same is disposed
of. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs."
7. Not only this, a writ appeal has been preferred by the State
Government and the same has also been dismissed vide order
dated 18th May, 2013 passed in WA No.182/11 affirming the
order passed by this Court in WP No. 10550/10. The State
Government has thereafter approached the Apex Court and a
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.27239/12 has been dismissed
by the Apex Court on 24.9.12 and therefore, the impugned show
cause notice dated 24.5.13 has been issued in order to comply
with the judgment delivered by the Division Bench as well as by
the Single Bench and therefore, the question of quashing the show
cause notice dated 24.5.13 in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case does not arise. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner
has been appointed subsequently to the post of Staff Nurse afresh
and learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated before this
Court that the petitioner be granted a liberty to represent her case
for grant of seniority by taking into account the initial date of
appointment i.e. w.e.f. 20th September, 2010 as she has worked
with the State Government on the post of Staff Nurse with effect
from the aforesaid date and as she has served the State
Government, the period of services rendered by her w.e.f. 20th
September, 2010 should be treated as spent on duty for all
purposes.
8. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
appears to be a genuine prayer, therefore while dismissing the
present petition a liberty is granted to the petitioner to claim
seniority w.e.f. 20th September, 2010 by filing a representation.
9. The petitioner in the present case as well as the petitioners in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27986
5 WP-4109-2013
other connected petitions shall be at liberty to submit a
representation for posting them to a nearby place or at the present
place of posting, where they are continuing. In case such a
representation is preferred, the respondents shall rise to occasion
and shall pass appropriate orders keeping in view the fact that
the petitioners are female candidates and most of them are
unmarried and supporting the family from their meager salary. In
case any of the candidates, who has not been appointed
subsequently, shall be free to submit a representation to the State
Government ventilating her grievance and the State Government
shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid all the writ petitions are dismissed.
11. No order as to costs."
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that this petition may be
disposed of by granting liberty to petitioners to file a fresh representation
before the competent authority with a direction to the Competent Authority
to decide the same within the stipulated period.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has not opposed the
innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for petitioners.
5. Considering the aforesaid order, petitioners are directed to submit a
detailed and fresh representation within a period of three weeks from today
before the Competent Authority. In turn, the respondents/Competent
Authority shall consider and decide the said representation of petitioners
without getting influenced by earlier notices of termination dated 24.05.2013
(Annexure P/1) within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. The respondents/Competent Authority is also
directed that if the petitioners are entitled to get benefit, the same be
extended to them.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27986
6 WP-4109-2013
6. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.
7. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
