IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 3298 of 2025 SHAILENDRA SINGH RANA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Alok Katare- learned Counsel for appellant.

Shri Ankur Mody- learned Additional Advocate General for respondents- State.

ORDER Per: Justice Hirdesh:

Considering the reasons assigned in IA No.9721 of 2026, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the same is allowed and only delay of three days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

2. Heard on admission.

3. The instant intra-Court appeal under Section 2(1) of MP Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the appellant arising out of order dated 08-08-2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.28601 of 2022, whereby the writ petition filed by petitioner (herein ''appellant'') has been dismissed. 4. It is the contention of appellant that he was temporarily appointed as a Constable (Sainik) in the Home Guard Department during Simhastha Mahakumbh of 2016. After the event, the State Government assured that temporary Home Guards would be reappointed. Subsequently, a circular dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure P2) was issued, allowing the reappointment of 2790 temporary Home Guards, including the present appellant. This Circular granted a one-time relaxation in the recruitment process, allowing candidates with prior criminal cases, if acquitted, to apply for reappointment. The appellant submitted his application for reappointment on 23.04.2018. Despite successfully completing his duties during Simhastha, as is evident from a letter dated 24.02.2020, appellant’s application was rejected on 25.09.2020. The rejection was based on the premise of pending criminal cases against him, which, according to Clause 2(c) of the Circular, disqualified him. However, the appellant had already been acquitted in all criminal cases prior to his recruitment, as confirmed by the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee recommended his recruitment, taking into account the acquittals. The other candidates with similar criminal backgrounds but who were acquitted were recruited, making the rejection of his case arbitrary and discriminatory, thus violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is also contended that the Home Guard Department issued a further order dated 01.08.2018 (Annexure P7), granting preference to candidates with additional qualifications. The appellant holds a Diploma in Computer Applications but his candidature was still dismissed. The respondents- authorities incorrectly interpreted Clause 2(c) of the Circular, which does not disqualify candidates with prior criminal cases, if acquitted.

6. It is further contended that the respondents had no authority to reject the recommendation of the Screening Committee and were obligated to issue the recruitment order. Under these circumstances, by placing reliance on the decision of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, learned Counsel for appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 28601 of 2022 and appointment of the appellant to the post of Sainik Home Guard.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents- State, opposed the appellant's contentions. It is contended that the appellant's involvement in multiple criminal cases makes him unsuitable for recruitment, regardless of his acquittals. Even acquitted candidates may be rejected for positions in disciplined services like the Police or Home Guards if their antecedents raise doubts about their character and suitability. It is further contended that Clause 2(c) of the Circular dated 17.04.2018 disqualifies candidates who were involved in criminal cases after their engagement