IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 5710 of 2014

SUKHLAL VERMA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya

Singh Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Kamalnath Nayak - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER regularization. The said petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of regularization. However, vide impugned order dated 01.06.2012 contained in Annexure P/7, the claim of the petitioner was rejected while observing that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, there was no sanctioned post, there was a violation of the reservation rules, and the initial induction was by an authority having no jurisdiction. It is further contended by the senior counsel that similarly situated employees, details of whom are mentioned in paragraph 5.7 of the petition, have been extended the benefit of regularization, and there is no denial of paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 of the petition by the respondents in the return. The respondents have also not explained in the return as to whether in the cases of initial induction of the aforesaid juniors, the aforesaid violations which find mention in Annexure P/7 were there or not. There is no clarification by the respondents regarding this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been regularized with effect from the same date. It is also contended by the senior counsel that the matter requires reconsideration in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826).

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India while praying for the following reliefs:

"i. Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. the date the services of his juniors have been regularized along with all consequential benefits

like arrears of salary, seniority etc.

ii. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble court may deem just and proper in the nature and

circumstances of the case."

2. It is contended by the senior counsel for the petitioner that this is the

second visit of the petitioner. Previously, the petitioner had also approached this Court by filing a petition vide W.P. No.4423/2010(s) for a direction to the respondents therein to consider the petitioner's candidature for

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that a perusal of the impugned order clearly reflects that the petitioner was not entitled to be regularized in terms of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and accordingly, the representation of the petitioner was rightly declined.

4. No other point is argued or pressed by the parties.

5. Heard the rival submissions of both parties and perused the record.

6. A perusal of the record reflects that in the previous round of litigation, this Court had considered the aspect that the petitioner was claiming parity, as his juniors namely, Mohd. Muinul Islam, Mr. Mohan Khandare, and Mr. Sunil Mankar were regularized and the benefit of regularization was not conferred upon the present petitioner. Therefore, the direction was issued. The claim of the petitioner has been declined vide Annexure P/7, i.e., a communication dated 01.06.2012. Return by the respondent has been filed. The respondent has not rebutted the specific averments made in paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 of the petition. The respondent has also not disclosed as to whether other juniors whose names find mention in paragraph 5.7 of the petition were fulfilling the criteria which is mentioned in the impugned rejection order dated 01.06.2