Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anita Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41935
1 WP-33532-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33532 of 2025
ANITA MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Viraaj Shanker Jha - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Shikha Sharma - Govt. Advocate for State.
ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for following
reliefs:-
"(i) To direct the respondents to appoint petitioners on the post of
Contract Teachers w.e.f. when the petitioners passed the eligibility
test, with all notional and actual benefits from the initial date.
(ii) To direct the respondent to compensate the petitioners
individually by paying an amount of ₹2,00,000/- or as determined
by this Honourable Court to be just and proper.
(iii) To grant any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit
and just in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2 . The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners'
case is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smita
Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. passed in SLP (C) No.23966-
23968/2023. He further submits that the petitioners are being denied
appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak on the ground that they
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41935
2 WP-33532-2025
are ineligible as they failed to procure minimum aggregate marks in the
eligibility examination. It is his submission that the circular prescribing such
condition has already been declared ultra-vires by the Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 24/08/2009 passed in the case of Sarbar Khan Vs.
State of M.P. & others in W.P. No.1688/2009. He refers to paragraph 20 of
the said order which read as under:-
"20. In the case at hand, as is demonstrable, initially the Rule
prescribed the eligibility criteria. By way of amendment, what has
been stipulated is that the candidate must receive the requisite
percentage of marks in each paper. Neither the original rule nor
the amended rule prescribes marks in aggregate. It is worth noting
that the aggregate is also connected and has intrinsic nexus with
the eligibility. Thus, it is luminescent that the rule had made a
postulate relating to the eligibility criteria and the letter circular
has stipulated a different eligibility criteria by incorporating the
concept of aggregate. It is, thus, luculent that the circular runs
absolutely contrary to the rules and, in fact, it brings in an
inconsistency. Thus, we have no doubt in our mind that the
circular issued by the Secretary, School Education Department,
dated 26-9-08, contained in Annexure-P/1, has to be declared ultra
vires as it supplants the rules and accordingly, we so declare"
3 . The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have
already submitted representation contained in Annexure-P/13 to the
respondents but the same has not been decided so far. He, therefore, prays
for disposal of the petition directing the respondents to consider the
petitioners representation keeping in view the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) as also judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarbar Khan (supra) .
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State has no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41935
3 WP-33532-2025
objection to the innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
5 . Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off directing respondent
no.2 & 3 to consider the petitioners' representation filed as Annexure-P/13,
along with this writ petition, and decide the same considering the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) and the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarbar Khan (supra) within a
period of 90 days' from the date of submission of the certified copy of this
order.
6 . Needless to mention that in case the petitioners are found covered
by the aforesaid decisions, they shall be given requisite benefits in
accordance with law. It is also directed that respondents no.2 & 3 shall
intimate the decision on their representation to the petitioners.
7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed off.
8 . It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
merits of the case.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
