IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI WRIT PETITION No.6722 of 2019 KAMAL SINGH NINGWAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHER Appearance:

Shri L.C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Amit Bhatia – Government Advocate for respondents/State.

___________________________________________________________________

Reserved on : 04/12/2025 Post on : 12/12/2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

“a) To call for the relevant records of the case from the respondents;

b) To quash the impugned order dated 28/07/2018 (Annexure P/4) issued by respondent No.1 in so far as it relates to respondent No.3 and less meritorious candidates and also impugned order dated 25/10/2018 (Annexure P/5) issued by respondent No.1 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner by a writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.

c) To command the official respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner appointing him on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police at least wef 28.07.2018 in the then regular pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 + GP Rs.5400 and grant him all consequential and monetary benefits together with interest 12% per annum by a wnt of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.

d) Allow this petition with costs.

e) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant relief to the petitioner.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been illegally and arbitrarily denied appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police pursuant to the State Civil Services Examination, 2017, despite having been duly selected by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 wrongly rejected his candidature by order dated 25/10/2018 on the false and baseless ground that he was found unsuitable for police service in the character-antecedent report prepared by respondent No.2. He asserts that no criminal case has ever been registered or pending against him at any point of time and therefore the cancellation of his candidature is wholly unsustainable.

3. The petitioner further submits that respondent No.1 proceeded to appoint several candidates lower in merit, including respondent No.2, to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by order dated 28/07/2018, thereby arbitrarily overlooking his superior merit and rightful claim. According to the petitioner, the entire action of the respondents reflects discrimination, non-application of mind, and violation of constitutional guarantees, compelling him to approach this Court seeking redress.

4. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 25/10/2018 and 28/07/2018, whereby he was declared unfit for appointment to the police service. It is contended that the petitioner has incorrectly alleged that his candidature was rejected on false grounds and that no criminal or departmental case existed against him. On the contrary, a departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint alleging that he demanded illegal gratification from Anganwadi workers during his posting at Jhabua. The charge was found proved, and the petitioner was punished with the withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect under Rule 10(4) M.P.

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

5. It is further submitted that a criminal complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, 1860 is also pending against the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua. These material facts were suppressed by the petitioner in his affidavit. The Scrutiny Committee, upon examining the petitioner’s character veri