IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

ON THE 8^th OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 2327 of 2024

CHHOTE LAL PATEL

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ritwik Parashar- Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER basis of the documents filed with the application form, the office of the Gram Panchayat prepared a provisional merit list, in which the petitioner was placed at Serial No.3 by securing 75.89 marks (Annexure P-4), and the names of Santosh Kumar Dubey and Ajay Kumar Dubey were at Serial No.1 and 2. The petitioner submitted an objection before the Chief Executive Officer that Santosh Kumar Dubey and Ajay Kumar Dubey are not residents of the Gram Panchayat Barji, as their names are not being reflected in the voter list; hence, they cannot be appointed. The objection was rejected (Annexure P-9). Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey was appointed to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak.

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

The appellant has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated

20.12.2023 (Annexure A-1), whereby the writ court has dismissed the

writ petition no.17909/2020.

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

(a) The respondent no.4 issued an advertisement on 31.03.2010,

inviting applications for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in various Gram Panchayats. The petitioner/appellant submitted an application for the appointment of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Barji, Janpad Panchayat Rithi District Katni (M.P). Apart from the petitioner, as many as 33 applications were received. On the

(b) Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P No. 16280/2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure P-10) with a liberty to file a revision before the Commissioner. Vide order dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure P-11), the Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Clause 3.2, which would be applicable only when the marks are equal between two candidates, then the preference would be given to the resident of the concerned gram panchayat.

(c) Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2017, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 5216/2012. During the pendency of this petition, Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey resigned from the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The petition got disposed of this writ petition on 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-14) with a direction to submit a fresh representation along with all the relevant documents before the respondent no.2. The CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Rithi forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Katni and Joint Commissioner (Development) Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur (M.P) for necessary instructions. The Commissioner, Jabalpur, vide order dated 28.10.2020, has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition.

(d) The respondents have filed their reply by submitting that vide order dated 01.11.2022 (Annexure R-1), the Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Rojgar Gurantee Parishad, imposed a ban on appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. It is further submitted that, as per guidelines issued by the Parishad that the life/validity of the waiting list/selection list is only one year. It is also submitted that the respondents have issued a fresh advertisement for the selection of Gram Rojgar Sahayak on 01.11.2022.

(e) The writ court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner cannot get the benefit of Clause 4A(3). Under Clause 3 of the guideline applicable at the time of issuance of the advertisement dated 31.03.2010. The petitioner secured 75.85 marks, whereas Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey secured 88 marks; therefore, the petitioner, being the local resident, cannot get preference over him; hence, this writ appeal before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner