Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29344
1 WP-19071-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 19071 of 2023
RAM PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Chandrakant Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde GA for State.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 26.06.2023 passed by respondent No.3
whereby claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected on the
ground that the petitioner is not having educational qualification of passing
of 8th class.
2. Facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed as
Recovery Peon/ Process Server in the fold of the respondents on 22.12.1983.
Thereafter, he had again been given appointment order from time to time
to.extend his services on the said posts. The services of the petitioner was not
continuously allowed and therefore, he made representation dated
25.05.2017 to permit him to work continue on the aforesaid post. In the year
2017, petitioner had again been given appointment on 01.11.2017 by the
terms and conditions mentioned in the order. The consent letter dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29344
2 WP-19071-2023
02.11.2017 was given by the petitioner for appointment in the year 2017.
The | petitioner has been stopped to work continue whereas, the petitioner
was working in the fold of the respondents since long time. . Similarly
situated persons have approached before this Hon'ble Court by filing writ
petition bearing W.P. No. 1357/2016 and same has been allowed by this
Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.04.2018 that all the petitioners, who were
appointed in the year 1989 are still working, and therefore, they are also
entitled for the same relief which has been extended to the writ petitioners of
W.P.No. 1357/2016.
3. Counsel for the respondents/State supported the impugned order on
the ground that petitioner is not possessing minimum educational
qualification of passing of 8th class.
4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that without there being any order
of termination, petitioner has not been allowed to work.
5. In the reply filed by the respondents they have not stated that
petitioner is not being allowed to work when there is no order of termination.
In the reply they have only stated that petitioner has not been considered for
regularization on the post of Driver because post of driver is gradually being
abolished.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that petitioner has been working for last 35 years with the
respondents and the circular dated 19.10.2005 filed by the respondents along
with Prativedan whereby a direction has been issued to regularize the
services of Process Server. Apart from that educational qualification of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29344
3 WP-19071-2023
passing of class 8th is prescribed for direct recruitment and not for
regularization. The Govt. has further issued a circular dated 6.09.2008
though the same is not on record but the same is referred in the judgment
passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Farooq Khan Vs. Revenue
Department (W.P.No. 13877/2020) decided on 8.02.2024 and as per para-6
of the said order, it is mentioned that the said circular does not provide any
educational qualification in respect of regulazisation of daily wager.
7. In view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Farooq
Khan (supra) and also the recent judgments passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Gajanand Sahu Vs. Santosh Kumar Sahu,SLP(C) No. 1558/2024 and
Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024), the
present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to pass appropriate
order in the matter of regularization of the petitioner keeping in view the
circular dated 19.10.2005 and also the circular dated 6.09.2008 within 30
days from the date of filing of copy of the order passed today. The petitioner
shall be treated to be in service and he shall also be granted all consequential
monetary benefits.
With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
