IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

WRIT PETITION No.19821 of 2020

BALIRAM KHEDEKAR

Versus

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

AND OTHERS

Appearance:

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

Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Govt.Advocate for respondents/State

Reserved on : 10/12/2025 Post on : 06/01/2026

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13/11/2019 passed by Respondent No.2, whereby his claim for absorption on the post of Gram

Sahayak/Panchayat Coordination Officer has been rejected, and further seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb him in Government service from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential and monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Secretary in Gram Panchayat Jethway, Tehsil Barwah, District Khargone, pursuant to Resolution No.24 dated 13.09.1994 passed by the Gram Panchayat. His joining took place on 15.09.1994. The petitioner asserts that his appointment was approved by the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Service, Khargone, and therefore his appointment was valid.

3. The petitioner places reliance upon various Government circulars, particularly circular dated 22/08/1994, and upon judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Govind Sharma, Manohar Khede, Brijendra Kumar Shrivastava, Rajendra Singh Jadon, and other similarly situated persons, contending that he is identically placed and entitled to absorption in Government service on the post of Gram Sahayak from the date of his initial appointment.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that despite repeated directions issued by this Court in earlier rounds of litigation to consider his claim, the respondents have rejected his claim by passing the impugned order dated 13/11/2019, which according to him is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfills all eligibility conditions prescribed under the circular dated 22/08/1994. It is argued that the Deputy Director was the competent authority at the relevant time to approve the appointment of Assistant Secretary and therefore the respondents cannot now turn around and dispute the validity of the petitioner’s appointment.

6. It is further submitted that several similarly situated persons appointed after 22.08.1994 and prior to 12.09.1995 have been absorbed in Government service from the date of their initial appointment pursuant to orders passed by this Court, which have attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Denial of similar relief to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination. It is also contended that the respondents have failed to act as a model employer and have compelled the petitioner to indulge in repeated rounds of litigation, thereby violating settled principles of service jurisprudence.

7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has opposed the writ petition by placing heavy reliance upon the detailed reply filed by the respondents. It is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made by the Gram Panchayat without the approval of the Collector, who alone was the competent authority under Section

69(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Act, 1993. The approval granted by the Deputy Director was without jurisdiction and is inconsequential in law.

8. It is further submitted that Government Circular dated 07/09/1979 categorically prohibited any fresh appointment of Panchayat Secretary/Part-time Secretary/Assistant Secretary. Therefore, the petitioner’s appointment itself was illegal and contrary to Government policy and no right of absorption can flow from such an appointment.

9. The responden