[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harinarayan Mewada vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12854
1 WP-5548-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5548 of 2026
HARINARAYAN MEWADA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Avesh Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The counsel for the petitioners contends that the issue involved in this
petition has already been dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated
21.10.2024 passed in W.P. No. 31117 of 2024 (Ramnath Yadav vs. The
State of M.P. and others) , therefore, the present petition be disposed of in
identical terms.
2. The counsel for the State submits that the grievance of the
petitioners shall be considered in terms of the order passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench in case of Ramnath Yadav (supra).
3. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ramnath Yadav (supra) has
passed the following order:-
"The case of the petitioners is that they were working as
instructors/Gurujis in non-formal education centers and education
guarantee centers in the State Government and as per the scheme
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12854
2 WP-5548-2026
floated by the State Government they appeared in the recruitment
test for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and
qualified the said test. However, the petitioners were not given
offer of appointment despite the matter being decided by this
Court time and again.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
aforesaid issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in SLP No.
23966-23968/2022 (Smita Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. ) dated
03.05.2024 and the case of the petitioners is similarly situated. It is
contended that the petitioners are also entitled to a similar
treatment.
3. Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate submits that the authority is
required to examine whether the case of the petitioners is at par
with the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) and also that the
petitioners have not been litigating since long and they are fence
sitters.
4. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is directed
that the case of the petitioners shall be examined whether they are
at par with the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra).
5. In the event, the case of the petitioners is found to be at par with
the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) then the case of the
petitioners shall be dealt with as per Para-6 and 7 of the order
passed in WP No. 29871/2022 and the said order will apply
mutatis mutandis in the case of present petitioners also. As the
petitioners are not shown to have agitated the matter at any point
of time till today, therefore, it is directed that the petitioners will
get benefits only from the date of filing of present petition and not
from any date prior to filing of this petition.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed off."
4. Accordingly, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the
aforesaid order passed in Ramnath Yadav (supra) . The directions issued
therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case as well.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12854
3 WP-5548-2026
5. Let the aforesaid direction be complied with by the respondents
within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of
this order.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
