Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devkaran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43960
1 WP-1415-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1415 of 2022
DEVKARAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Navaneet Dubey - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for the Respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Gopal Singh Baghel - Advocate for Respondents No.4 to 14.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submits that his case is
squarely covered by a judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.1219/2021 decided on 02.09.2025. It is contended that the only
difference in the present case is that in place of tenure of 1 year, 9 months
and 7 days in the aforesaid case, the Scrutiny Committee has found the
tenure of Petitioner to be 1 years 8 months and 19 days and in place of initial
appointment in the said case, which was shown to be 16.06.1998, the initial
appointment of Petitioner is shown to be 15.04.1996 in the Scrutiny
Committee report and in the reply, the respondents have admitted the
petitioner to be continued in service from 24.10.1990 whereas in the
aforesaid case, the employee was admitted in reply to be in service from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43960
2 WP-1415-2022
20.03.1998. Therefore, from every angle, the case of the Petitioner is at par
with the aforesaid case, if not better.
2. This Court in Writ Petition No.1219/2021 has passed the following
Order:-
"By way of the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge
the order Annexure P/5 whereby the respondents have appointed
12 employees on the post of Peons server in District-Sehore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a scrutiny
was carried out prior to issuance of order in terms of the Policy
Annexure P/2. In the Policy Annexure P/2, the State government
has decided to give appointment on the post of peon to the process
servers working in Revenue Department by way of regularization/
appointment and as per the said policy there is no upper age limit
and the appointment will be given by way of seniority, the test of
which shall be service tenure of the concerned person.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that as per scrutiny committee
minutes Annexure P/4, he having been appointed initially on 20th
March 1998 given four appointment orders i.e. 20.03.1998,
01.01.1999, 05.01.2000 and 10.04.2001, hence his initial date of
appointment is to be reckoned as 20.03.1998 and total service
tenure is to be seen from 20.03.1998 whereas various other
persons given regularization/ appointment, for example respondent
No. 10-Veerendra was appointed for the first time on 01.01.1999
and therefore their length of service was lesser than the petitioner
and therefore such persons whose initial date of appointment are
later to the petitioner could not have been given appointment. It is
contended that in the scrutiny list Annexure P/4 various persons
have been declared fit for being regularized/appointed though the
initial dates of appointment of many of them are later to the
petitioner.
4. It is further contended that even the petitioner belonging to UR
category and some others belonging to SC/ST or OBC category
would not come to the impediment of petitioner because as many
as 21 posts under UR category were vacant and therefore the
petitioner could always having given appointment in UR category
because only two persons have been appointed belonging to UR
category.
5. Per contra, it is contended by the State that in the policy
Annexure P/2 the service tenure would not be the date of initial
appointment till the date of scrutiny and the period between these
two dates. The length of service would be the actual days of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43960
3 WP-1415-2022
service because the employment as process server is not regular
and the persons are given offers from time to time for certain
periods and therefore, the petitioner's length of service was less.
6. Upon hearing the rival parties at length, it is seen that on
20.11.2024 a coordinate Bench of this court has considered the
arguments of the petitioner and has passed the following order:-
"It is the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that proper
seniority list has not been prepared. The seniority list was to be
prepared in terms of the circular issued by the Government dated
19.10.2005 (Annexure P/2) wherein in terms of Clause II the total
length of services is to be considered. The document (Annexure
P/4) does not reflect the total length of service been done by the
candidates. The complaint was made regarding preparation of the
seniority list and charge sheet has been issued to the delinquent
employee which is reflected from the document dated 24.09.2019
filed along with the rejoinder. Despite of the same, the return is
filed in the month of August, 2021 is silent about the same. This
amounts to suppression of material information from the court.
State counsel is unable to explain that why the return is silent and
what is the outcome of the charge sheet which has been issued to
the delinquent employee vide Annexure P/6. Under these
circumstances, the Officer who has got the return prepared be
present before this court on the next date of hearing to explain the
same."
7. The scrutiny committee minutes as brought on record vide
Annexure P/4 mention that the petitioner has completed the total
service tenure of 1 year, 9 months and 7 days and his initial
appointment is shown to be 16.06.1998 whereas the scrutiny is
taking place in the year 2019 which is after 21 years. The
respondents in paragraph 4 of the reply have contended that the
petitioner continued in service from 20.03.1998 till date of
impugned order i.e. till the year 2019. In such circumstances,
looking to the specific averments in paragraph no. 4 of the reply
how the petitioner has completed only 1 year, 9 months and 7 days
till the date of scrutiny is beyond the comprehension of this court
and even during course of arguments, learned counsel for the
respondent State was a total loss of words to justify the service
tenure as mentioned against the name of petitioner in the scrutiny
committee minutes Annexure P/4. When this Court put a specific
query to counsel for the State that if the actual total days of service
tenure is the only criteria and not the period from date of
appointment till date of scrutiny is the criteria, then why against
the name of other persons who are scrutinized along with the
petitioner, such tenure has not been mentioned and out of 19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43960
4 WP-1415-2022
persons so scrutinized, only against the names of two persons i.e.
Haneef Beg, and Devkaran, it has been mentioned that their
service tenure is some specific years, months and days. If the
specific tenure was the requisite benchmark then the reason why
specific years, months and days of service is not mentioned
against the names of others, learned counsel for the State was at
total loss of words to explain the situation.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out
to the position that a charge-sheet has been issued to an employee
in the matter of irregularities in the scrutiny committee minutes.
From a perusal of the charge-sheet Annexure P/6, it is seen that
one employee holding the post of Assistant Grade III was
suspended and placed under suspension for irregularities in these
scrutiny committee proceedings. However, it is seen that this
scrutiny committee minutes are signed not by Assistant Grade-III,
but are signed by District Employment Officer, District Treasury
Officer, Additional Collector, Deputy Collector, Superintendent of
Office of Collector and approved by the Collector himself.
Therefore, it is clear that just as an eye wash and to save the actual
culprits who have erroneously carried out the scrutiny committee
in a most unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary manner, a charge-
sheet has been issued to Assistant Grade-III and even in respect of
that, no further outcome has been intimated.
9. In pursuance to this Court order dated 20.11.2024, an additional
reply filed by the State which is totally astounding. Instead of
replying to any of the requirements as required by this Court vide
order dated 20.11.2024, the respondents have reiterated the
position that the length of service is the actual number of days for
which the concerned person has worked and also that the fact
regarding charge sheet issued to Assistant Grade-III cannot now be
raised because that charge had been issued even prior to filing of
the petition. It is further contended in the additional reply that the
actual length of service of the petitioner is proper and this Court
should only look to the documents filed along with the petition
while adjudicating the matter and in para 11 of the additional
reply, it is most surprisingly pleaded that the petitioner has tried to
mislead this court by placing on record charge-sheet issued to
Assistant Grade-III. It is further alleged against the petitioner that
it is the petitioner who is playing hide and seek and he has
suppressed material facts.
10. From a perusal of the additional reply, it is evident that the
State Government is only trying to save the culprits who have
illegally carried out the scrutiny proceedings Annexure P/4 and
they have gone to the length of making totally irrelevant pleadings
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43960
5 WP-1415-2022
and not replied to any of the points as required by this Court by
order dated 20.11.2024 and have even gone to the length of the
making counter allegations against the petitioner and have
suggested to this court that this court should only look to the
documents which are filed along with the initial reply. Such a
additional reply filed by the State Government is nothing but a
malicious piece of pleading filed before this Court which deserves
to be dealt with heavy hands.
11. From a bare perusal of scrutiny committee minutes, as already
noted above, it is clear that the respondents have not mentioned
the tenure of service as translated into actual number of days
worked for as many as 17 employees out of 19 scrutinized and
have mentioned the length of work/ days of work only in respect
of two persons being scrutinized. If the number of days was the
benchmark then against name of each and every person being
scrutinized, it was obligatory for the authority to have mentioned
the number of days of working of the said person being
scrutinized. Therefore it is clear that the scrutiny committee
minutes are totally skewed with a view to grant undue benefit to
some and deny rightful benefits to others and it is nothing but
grossly irrational, arbitrary and illegal exercise carried out by the
respondents.
12. Therefore, the scrutiny committee minutes Annexure P/4 are
set aside. The consequential order Annexure P/5 is also set aside.
13. The respondents are directed to carry out fresh scrutiny on the
basis of position existing on the date of initial scrutiny i.e. on
24.08.2019 and this fresh scrutiny be carried out and completed
within 30 days from today. It is made clear that only those
employees will continue in service who are found to be entitled as
per the fresh scrutiny to be carried out. The employees already
appointed vide Annexure P/5 will continue in service till scrutiny
process is over and thereafter the result of fresh scrutiny process
would be followed and those who are declared ineligible in the
fresh scrutiny process shall lose their employment. All the
selectees/appointees are already impleaded as parties before this
Court as respondents numbers 4 to 15.
14. Looking to the manner in which the scrutiny committee has
proceeded with the minutes, the Principal Secretary, Department
of Revenue, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal is directed to scrutinize
whether any criminal activity has taken place while carrying out
this scrutiny and if he reaches to that conclusion then he shall
ensure initiation of criminal action against all the persons who
have signed and/or approved scrutiny committee minutes and he
would also be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:43960
6 WP-1415-2022
such signatories after reaching his own independent satisfaction in
the matter.
15. Let the compliance report be filed within before the Registry
of the court within 60 days.
16. Petition is allowed and disposed of."
3. Learned counsel for the State though opposed the Petition but was
not in a position to point out to any distinguishing feature.
4. Consequently, the present Petition is also allowed in similar terms.
The said Order will apply mutatis mutandis to the case of present Petitioner
also and his case will be scrutinized in similar terms.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
