Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Meena Behere vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52127
1 WP-1872-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1872 of 2013
SMT. MEENA BEHERE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.P. Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vaaridhi Pathak - Panel Lawyer for State.
ORDER
The counsel for petitioner contends that the issue involved in the
present case has already been dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P. No.2196 of 2013 (Satya Narayan Shukla and others vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others), wherein the Co-ordinate
Bench has held as under :
"This order will decide W.P. No. 2196/2013 and W.P. No.
2276/2013. Facts are taken from W.P. no. 2196/2013.
2. The challenge in the present petition is made to the
enquiry proceedings dated 24.09.2012 placed on record as
Annexure P/6 in W.P. No 2196/2013.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners were
appointed on various posts in the School run by the Municipal
Corporation Katni and on some other posts. The petitioners
were working since long i.e. since the year 1990-91 and the
scrutiny took place for regularization of their services and
proposal was sent by the Commissioner Municipal
Corporation Katni to State Government vide Annexure P/2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52127
2 WP-1872-2013
dated 31.03.2000.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that after the said proposal
was approved, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation
Katni passed an order regularising the services of the
petitioners by order Annexure P/5 dated 17.06.2005 but
shortly thereafter regularization order was withdrawn by the
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Katni by order
Annexure P/6 dated 28.06.2005 filed in W.P. No. 3515/2005.
W.P. No. 3515/2005 was decided vide order dated 24.04.2006
whereby this Court quashed the order of cancelling
the regularization of the petitioners on the ground that the
petitioners were not put to notice before cancelling the
regularization and therefore, while quashing the order of
cancellation of regularization a liberty was granted to carry
out a fresh proceeding.
5. In compliance of the order passed in W.P. No. 3515/2005
the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni issued an
order Annexure P/5 formally cancelling the order whereby
regularization of the petitioners were cancelled.
6. It appears that thereafter in the year 2012 some question
was raised in the Legislative Assembly regarding
regularization of illegal and irregular appointments in
Municipal Corporation Katni and in terms of the questions
raised in Legislative Assembly, the State Authority put up the
matter in terms of the liberty granted by this court in W.P. No.
3515/2005(S) and started fresh proceedings for scrutiny of the
appointment and regularization of the petitioners. This
scrutiny has been carried out resulting in report Annexure
P/6 and in the report it is found that the appointment of the
petitioners were not proper.
7. Upon perusal of the said scrutiny report, it is seen that the
report only questioned various procedural lapses that took
place at the time of appointment of petitioners and takes into
account that procedure was not followed at the time of
appointment. The said scrutiny has not taken place in terms of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein the
Supreme Court clearly drawn distinction between illegal and
irregular appointments.
8. The State Government had issued a circular dated
16.05.2007 in the matter of scrutiny of illegal and irregular
appointment and the entire proceedings Annexure P/6 do not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52127
3 WP-1872-2013
even take the said circular into consideration nor the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) has been
taken in consideration that in what manner the appointments
are being found illegal and not irregular. The report while
holding the appointment to be illegal only talks about
procedural lapses at the time of appointment whereas it is
settled that the procedural lapses at the time of appointments
would made the appointments irregular not illegal. The State
Government itself has issued detailed instructions on
16.05.2007 to assess as to what appointment should be illegal
and as to what appointment should be irregular, however,
even the instructions have not been taken note of by the
authority at the time of scrutiny carried out vide Annexure
P/6. The entire exercise of scrutiny seems to be carried out
only to give some answers to the questions raised in the
Legislative Assembly which is after a period of 6 years of
liberty being granted by this Court in W.P. No. 3515/2005.
9. The respondents have contended that the scrutiny has
only been carried out and no consequential order has yet been
passed and the petitioners would have grievance only when
consequential orders are passed. The aforesaid contention
cannot be accepted because the authority of the State has
already given conclusive findings that the appointments of the
petitioners is illegal and that too without taking note of
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra)
and also the circular issued by the State Government in terms
of the said judgment.
10. As a result the scrutiny proceeding Annexure P/6
deserves to be and are hereby quashed. The respondents
would be at liberty to carry out the scrutiny in accordance
with judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi
(supra) and circular dated 16.05.2007 and not in any other
manner whatsoever.
11. If the respondents wish to carry out the fresh process
then they may do so within a period of 4 months from the date
of production of certified copy of this order and beyond that
they will not be at liberty to carry out this exercise.
12. Petition is allowed and disposed of. "
2. Thus, the counsel for petitioner submits that respondents be
directed to take a decision in the case of the petitioner in the light of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52127
4 WP-1872-2013
order passed in Satya Narayan Shukla and others (supra) .
3. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 24-09-
2012 contained in Annexure-P/6 stands quashed, so far as it relates to
the present petitioner. The directions contained in Satya Narayan Shukla
and others (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case as
well.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
