IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6866 of 2012 RAJENDRA RICHHARIA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Hitendra Singh - G.A. for the State.

ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

"1) the Hon’ble Court may pleased to call for relevant record pertaining to the subject matter for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

2) To quash the order impugned Ann.P/1 by issuing an appropriate writ order and direction.

3) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed together cost of petition."

2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner applied for the post of Samvida Shala Shiksha Grade III in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.05.2006 contained in Annexure P/3, by way of his application form dated 05.06.2006 contained in Annexure P/4. He was subsequently issued a call letter dated 06.12.2006, contained in Annexure P/5, and thereafter, the petitioner got appointed to the post of Samvida Shala Shiksha Grade III vide order dated 08.01.2007 contained in Annexure P/6. However, the petitioner's service was terminated vide order dated 27.03.2012 contained in Annexure P/1 on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of D.Ed and experience. Hence, this petition.

3 . The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was removed from service on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the D.Ed. qualification nor was having experience to teach the children of class I to VIII. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that so far as the possession of D.Ed. qualification is concerned, the aforesaid fact does not require much debate, inasmuch as, in additional return, it has been admitted by the respondents that the D.Ed. qualification was not one of the requirements at the relevant time and the said fact is evident from paragraph 4 of the additional return filed by the respondents. It is further contended that so far as experience is concerned, the petitioner along with the rejoinder has filed an experience certificate and as per the said certificate, the petitioner was having experience of teaching the students of Class 9th and 10th and therefore, since the petitioner was possessing the experience of teaching the higher classes, the said experience cannot be ignored by the respondents while alleging that the petitioner was not having teaching experience to teach class 1 to 8. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6233-6234 of 2023 (Vivek Kaisht &

Anr. vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.).

4. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7841 of 2011 (Man Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary and Ors.) and submitted that the Apex Court in almost identical cases protected the appointment, taking into consideration the fact that the person concerned had performed the duties for a prolonged period of time.

5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed at very threshold. The petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak - III as he was not possessing the eligibility criteria, which was stipulated by the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Niyojan Evam Samvida Ki Shartein) Niyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2005). As per Rule 6(9)(5) of the Rules of 2005, teaching experience of Class 1 to 8 was required for appointment against the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak - III. The petitioner was not possessing the said qualification, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of