Appointment processes under specified schemes must adhere strictly to established criteria like seniority, ensuring no discrimination occurs in reappointment cases.

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

th

ON THE 19 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 1745 of 2025 RAM CHANDRA PAHADIYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Shrey Raj Saxena Dy.Ag appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

ORDER Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla The present intra court appeal is filed against the order dated

21.3.2025 passed in W.P.No. 1122/2021 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Facts of the case are that in the year 2019 the respondent No.2 had issued a direction to all the Collectors of the State of M.P. for filling the posts of Block Academic Coordinators and Jan Shikshaks under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The above posts were to be filled up through deputation from the feeder post of High School Teacher and Middle School Teacher. The instructions were given vide Annx.P/3 for a time bound program. The petitioner was already working as Block Academic coordinator and being Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA aspirant, he also submitted his application on 29.11.2020 by giving his consent that he wanted to work as Block Academic coordinator. The respondent prepared a list in which the name of the petitioner stands at serial no.24 and the name of respondent No.7 was not mentioned. Instead of appointing the petitioner on the said post, the respondent No.7 was appointed on the said post by way of deputation.

2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is senior in the cader of the Teacher than respondent No.7. As per guidelines Annx.P/3 dated 14.11.2019 in clause 2 selection procedure has been prescribed and as per the said clause subjectwise a list for selection has to be prepared on the basis of seniority. Despite that respondent NO.7 who was junior to the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Block Academic coordinator and Jan Shikshak by way of deputation,hence the petitioner has been discriminated.

3. Respondents filed the reply before the Writ Court and in para 8 of the reply they submitted that in the Block Education Center, Agar total 19 Block Academic coordinators and total Jan Shikshak were to be appointed by way of deputation. Since the writ petitioner was already working on deputation, therefore he was relieved and his name was included in the said list vide Annx.R/1. Counsel for the respondents argued that since the petitioner was already working on deputation, therefore he had not been appointed again on deputation.

4. Counsel for the respondent/State could not point out from the policy of the appointment or any Rule that there was any bar for a person who is already working on deputation for reappointment on the said post on Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA deputation.

5. In view of aforesaid, this Court finds that learned Single Judge has erred while dismissing the petition on the ground that petitioner has no right to claim appointment by way of deputation as there was no bar for applying the petitioner for appointment on deputation and the criteria for appointment was seniority and junior has been appointed,hence the petitioner has been discriminated.

6. In view of aforesaid, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Block Academic coordinator and Jan Shikshak on deputation in accordance with law specially as per Annx.P/3 within 60 days from the date of filing of copy of the order passed today.