IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 5 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 2363 of 2024

SMT. JYOTI SHUKLA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ramsuphal Chaturvedi - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ritwik Parashar- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Shri Shubham Dhagat- Advocate for respondent no.6.

ORDER present appellant submitted the form, but the same was not accepted. The respondent no.6 approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 10943/2012 to issue an appointment order instead of going for a fresh selection vide advertisement dated 12.06.2012. Vide order dated 02.09.2023, the writ petition came to be allowed, by directing the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 to give effect to the select list dated 15.04.2011 or dated 25.06.2012 by issuing the appointment order to the petitioner. A cost of Rs . 10,000/- was also imposed on the respondents.

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

The appellant/Smt. Jyoti Shukla has filed this writ appeal against the

order dated 02.09.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed in W.P. No. 10943/2012 filed by Shri Neelkamal Mishra, which came to be allowed. Thereafter, the

review petition was also dismissed.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows:-

(a) The respondents issued an advertisement dated 12.06.2012 by way

of publication in a news newspaper for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Raipur, Janpad Panchayat Teothar, District Rewa (M.P). The selection list was published, in which the respondent no.6/Shri Neelkamal Mishra was placed at Serial No. 1. The

(b) In compliance with the aforesaid order, an appointment order dated

13.12.2023 (Annexure A-2) has been issued in the name of respondent no.6/Shri Neelkamal Mishra. The present appellant filed Review Petition No.1243/2023 seeking review of the order dated 02.09.2023 passed in W.P. No.10943/2012. Vide order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure A-3), the review petition was dismissed with a specific finding that the review petitioner never assailed her non-selection/non-appointment before the appellate authority, when the cause of action arose to her in the year 2012, and she slept over her cause of action for more than 10 years.

(c) The present appellant again filed W.P. No. 15523 of 2024 challenging the appointment order of the respondent no.6. However, vide order dated 23rd July, 2024 (Annexure A-4), the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable with a liberty to assail the order of the High Court passed in favour of the respondent no.6 before the appropriate forum. Hence, this present writ appeal is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment order of the respondent no.6 is bad in law as he produced a forged certificate of Diploma in Computer Application. Vide order dated 15.06.2012 (Annexure A-5), the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rewa, has quashed the entire selection and directed for fresh selection; therefore, the writ court has wrongly directed to issue an appointment order in favour of the respondent no.6.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. That the writ court, while dismissing the review petition, has rightly observed that the cause of action arose in favour of the present appellant in the year 2012 when her form was not accepted. She should have challenged her non-selection in the year 2012 by filing an appeal. She remained silent and did not take any action. The respondent no.6 was placed at Serial No.1 in the merit list, but an appointment order was not issued; therefore, he approached this Court in the year 2012. Although the writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 02.09.2023 (Annexure A-1) and thereafter the appointment order was issued, therefore, the respondent no.6 was vigilant about his rights and approached this Court well within the time, but the present appellant did not challenge her non-selection by way of appeal. Therefore, now she has no locus to file