IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 19 OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT APPEAL No. 623 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

RAKESH PANDEY S/O GANESH MANI PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE SAGAUNI, POST BHARATPUR, TEHSIL RAMPUR NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI MANOJ SHARMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI QUAZI FAKHRUDDIN - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, REWA REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR, SIDHI DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SHAKUNTALA PANDEY W/O SHRI RAJESH PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAIDUARIYA KALA TEHSIL RAMPUR NAIKIN DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ANUBHAV JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 AND 3)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Mishra passed the following:

ORDER

Assailing the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.11019 of 2019 in analogous hearing with other petitions, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed in the respondent/department on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in the year 2011. It is pointed out that the respondent No.4 was the Chairman of the agriculture committee at Janpad Panchayat, Rampur Naikin who has preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner Rewa against the appointment of the four persons including that of petitioner on the ground that the appointments have been made contrary to the rules and selection procedure has not been followed. Further no verification was got conducted regarding educational qualification of these persons. Along with revision an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed but the learned Commissioner without considering the aforesaid application and without deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has passed the impugned order which is not in consonance with the settled principles of law. A writ petition filed by one Virendra Singh is pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court and without considering the same, the learned Commissioner has taken cognizance into the matter and has passed the impugned order without even waiting for the outcome of the petition pending before this Court, therefore, the writ petition was filed.

3. The learned Writ Court has taken up the matter in analogous hearing along with other writ petitions and has dismissed all the writ petitions upholding the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA order passed by the learned Commissioner. As far as the case of Rakesh Pandey is concerned, the writ appeal has been filed on the ground that they were appointees of 2011 and they are working on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, therefore, the appointment being contractual in nature does not attract the strict rules of service jurisprudence to be followed. Even otherwise, the revision was filed after a long period of time without there being any explanation for the delay and the learned Commissioner without even deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has passed the impugned order thereby terminating the services of the petitioner as well as directing for registration of an FIR against the concerning as well as the authorities who were found involved in the procedure for grant of appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak.

4. No notice of the revisions has been issued to the affected parties neither they have been provided any opportunity of hearing and the direction for registration of an FIR has been issued. The same is contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair