[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Shodhe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4078
1 WP-4241-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4241 of 2026
MANOJ KUMAR SHODHE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Nagar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Drishti Rawal -GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following
reliefs:
7.1 Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and
setting aside the impugned action/order dated 20.06.2025,
whereby the petitioner has been illegally denied the benefit of
Acting/Officiating Charge to the post of Head Constable (GD);
7.2 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
extend the benefit of Acting/Officiating Charge of Head Constable
(GD) to the petitioner on parity with similarly situated Constables,
whose names appeared in the same Suitability List dated
26.05.2025 and who were granted such benefit by orders dated
19.06.2025;
7.3 Declare that the Gazette Notification dated 19.06.2025
notifying the Madhya Pradesh Promotion Rules, 2025 operates
prospectively and does not nullify or adversely affect the
Suitability List dated 26.05.2025 or the petitioner's accrued right
of consideration thereunder;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4078
2 WP-4241-2026
7.4 Direct the respondents to grant the petitioner all
consequential service benefits, including notional seniority, arising
out of grant of Acting/Officiating Charge, from the date similarly
situated persons were granted such benefit;
7.5 Direct the respondents to decide the petitioner's
representation dated 21.01.2026 by passing a reasoned and
speaking order within a time- bound period as may be fixed by
this Hon'ble Court and to grant the same benefit as was granted to
the similarly situated persons;.
7.6 Award the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner;
and
7.7 Pass any other writ, order, or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem just, proper, and equitable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that, pursuant to the
recommendations dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P/1), his name was included
at Serial No. 9 for promotion to the officiating post of Head Constable. The
petitioner further submits that out of the thirteen individuals listed, three
have already been granted the said officiating charge. However, despite the
petitioner having no record of minor penalties, which serves as the primary
disqualification criteria under Annexure P/1, he has been excluded and
singled out by the respondents.
3. It is noted that a representation dated 21.01.2026 filed by the
petitioner is currently pending before the competent authority. Consequently,
ithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the entitlement of
the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent
authority i.e. respondent No. 5 to consider the petitioner's representation in
the light of the recommendations made in Annexure P/1 and the treatment of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4078
3 WP-4241-2026
similarly situated persons named therein. If the authority determines that the
petitioner is entitled to hold the charge of the higher officiating post of Head
Constable, the same shall be granted to him within a period of sixty days. If
the authority decide to deviate from the recommendation, it shall pass a
reasoned and speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner
within the aforementioned period. It is further clarified that the authority
shall remain uninfluenced by the contents of Annexure P/2 and shall instead
take an independent decision based strictly on the recommendations in
Annexure P/1.
With the said observation, the petition stands disposed of.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
hk/
