IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6455 of 2021 DEVENDRA SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Kaushlendra Singh Tomar - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

Shri Udit Saxena - Advocate for respondent No.7.

None for respondent No.6, though served as per office note.

ORDER With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondent No. 7 and prays for the following reliefs:

"(a) That, the order impugned dated 22.03.2012, contained in Annexure-P/3, may kindly be cancelled/quashed with a further to declare deem cancellation after expiry of 10 days, in accordance with rules and regulations.

(b) That, the respondents No. 1 to 3 be further directed to take cognizance against the officers who has issued order of appointment (Annexure-P/3) in favour of respondent No. 7 based on forged and fabricate certificate, with a further to take action against the responsible authority, in the interest of justice.

(c) That, declaring the joining of respondent No. 7 as unlawful and the respondents authority be further commanded to make recovery of salary which was received by respondent No. 7 committed fraud and causing loss to the government ex-chequer.

(d) That, the respondent No. 1 be directed to take action against the erring officers who are protecting such illegal appointment of respondent No. 7 which deserves deemed cancellation of appointment with a further to take action against respondent No. 7 who has got employment based on forged documents, in accordance with law.

(e) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.

7 succeeded in getting himself appointed as Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Janpad Panchayat Vijaypur, District Sheopur, on the strength of an allegedly forged MATE training certificate purportedly issued by the Assam University, Silchar, Assam (Annexure-P/A). By referring to Clause-3 of the circular (Annexure-P/2), containing the desired qualifications for appointment to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak, he submits that possessing a CIDC MATE training certificate was an essential qualification, which respondent No.7 allegedly did not possessed.

3. By referring to the communication dated 21.10.2020 (Annexure-P/7)

issued by the Assam University, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Vijaypur Block, District Sheopur, learned counsel submits that upon a complaint, when the certificate of the petitioner was sent for verification, the University informed that the copy of the certificate required further investigation and directed that the original certificate be sent for verification. Further, by referring to the return filed by respondent No. 1 to 5 and the communication dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure-R/2) contained therein, he submits that even the reminder was sent by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat to the Director, Assam University; however, no verification report was received. According to him, this itself indicates that the certificate possessed by respondent No. 7 is a forged document.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court, vide order dated

29.07.2025, directed the State to call the original record of the Janpad Panchayat pertaining to the matter and in pursuance thereto, the State has produced a list said to have been verified by Construction Industry Development Council (CIDC), Delhi, wherein the name of respondent No. 7 though finds mention, but he submits that even the said list is suspicious, as the certificate was required to be issued by the district itself, as has been stated in the communication dated 10.07.201