IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 20 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 28487 of 2019 SIDDHARTH MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Praveen Namdeo - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 26508 of 2019 SHAILENDRA MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Praveen Namdeo - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 3858 of 2020 SMT. SUSHMA PANIKA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Praveen Namdeo - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

The present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs :-

"(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 issued by respondent no.2 (Annexure-P/9) and order dated 30.11.2019 issued by respondent no.3 (Annexure-

P/10).

(ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of retirement i.e. 31.08.2029.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation."

2 . Regard being had to similitude of the facts of all cases, they are heard analogously and being decided by a common order. For the purpose of deciding the present case, short facts of W.P. No.26508/2019 are reproduced here under. In W.P. No.28487/2019 and W.P. No.26508/2019, the petitioners who are Middle School Teachers (Madhyamik Shikshak) have been compulsory retired by the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 Annexure-P/1 and Annexure-P/9 respectively. However, the said orders have not been filed along with the petition but the same have been brought on record by the State Government by calling the record. The impugned orders have been passed by taking aid of Rule 42(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, holding compulsory retirement of the petitioners is in public interest. The petitioners are retired by giving three months advance salary.

3. It is the case of the petitioner in WP No.28487/2019 that he was initially appointed as Upper Division Teacher. The petitioner in WP No.26508/2019 was initially appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak. It is submitted that the petitioner was earlier working in the Government Higher Secondary School, th Khedi, District Khandwa. The result of Class 10 examination was from 58% to 98%. The petitioner was transferred to District Rewa on 31.01.2019 and just thereafter, the Board examination of 2019 had commenced and the petitioner did not have much time to impart education to students at Rewa. It th is submitted that the respondent, on being found that the result of Class-10 was not satisfactory, had issued a letter dated 01.06.2019 (Annexure-P/3), directing the petitioner to appear in the examination organized for evaluation of the efficiency of the teachers, who imparted education to Class-

th

10 students and secured less than 30% of the result. In the letter Annexure- P/3 and P/4, it is mentioned that the purpose of conducting the examination is not to humiliate or fail the teachers but to advance training and education to those teachers so that they can fetch higher percentage of the result. It is the case of the petitioner that first examination was held on 12.06.2019, when he could not appear but in the examination held on 15.6.2019, he appeared but failed. Thereafter, he did not appear in the examination held on 14.10.2019 and