IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 965 of 2024 SEVARAM BARANGE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Samdardhi Tiwari-Senior Advocate with Shri Palash Upadhyay-

Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ritwik Parashar- Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

1. The appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure A-2), whereby the Writ Petition no.8153/2017 has been dismissed and also against the order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure A-1), whereby Review petition No.71/2024 has also been dismissed.

Heard on I.A No. 5619/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing this writ appeal.

2. The reason mentioned in the application is that the period of delay, which is 35 days due to the review petition, hence the delay is condoned, and the application is allowed.

3. Also on I.A No. 23160/2024, which is an application for taking documents on record, is allowed, and documents are taken on record.

Heard on the question of admission.

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

(a) The appellant/petitioner and respondent no.6/Om Prakash Kapole were working as daily wagers in the Public Works Department. The General Administration Department vide order dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) directed all the departments to appoint Steno Typist and Stenographer and also make suitable provisions about the computer knowledge/education for the clerical posts in the service recruitment rules. In order to appoint a daily rated employee in regular establishment, the Departmental Selection Examination 2012 was conducted by the VYAPAM, and as on 01.01.2013, the maximum age of 50 years was prescribed in all categories of appointments. In pursuance of the said advertisement (Annexure R-1), the common application was invited for recruitment to the posts of Stenographer and Steno Typist. The VYAPAM published a joint merit list on 23.05.2013 (Annexure R-2). In the written as well as practical examination, the petitioner secured 50 marks, and respondent no.6 secured 61 marks out of 100 marks. Both belonged to the OBC category. The petitioner was possessing a Hindi Typing and computer diploma, whereas the respondent no.6 had only 10 years of experience & Matriculation certificate but did not possessing computer examination certificate. Vide order dated 18.03.2013, the Four Member Committee recommended the appointment of respondent no.6 on the post of Stenographer by giving one year's time to procure the requisite computer qualification. The petitioner/appellant was appointed to the post of Steno Typist vide order dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure P-4), whereas the private respondent was appointed to the post of Stenographer, which carries a higher pay scale.

(b) The petitioner approached this court after a lapse of 4 years to claim appointment to the post of Stenographer. However, Mr. Om Prakash Kapole was impleaded as respondent no.6, but no specific prayer has been claimed in the writ petition for quashment of his appointment. The relief prayed is reproduced as under:-

"(i) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Stenographer in lieu of Steno Typist in place of the private respondent no.6 and to pay him arrears and other service benefit on the post of stenographer since the date of appointment i.e. 31.5.13 with all consequential benefit.

(ii) To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

(c) According to the petitioner, the respondent no.6 did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Stenographer; therefore, he was wrongly appointed, and in his place, he ought to have been appointed to the post of Stenographer. The writ court has examined th