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

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 13979 of 2011 BHARAT BHUSHAN PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri P. Pareek - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Girish Kekre - Government Advocate for the State.

Shri Lal Raj Bahoran Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the respondent No.5.

ORDER This is a petition by the petitioner while praying for the following reliefs:

"(i) That the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to quash the order dated 28/06/2011 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Respondent No. 3, and also declare the resolution dated 12/08/2006 (Annex. P/6) passed by Respondent no. 4 as void and quash the same in interest of justice.

(ii) It is further prayed that, the respondent no. 4 may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi in the interest of justice.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper, may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice.

(iv) Cost of the petition may also be granted in favor of the petitioner."

2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 28.06.2011 contained in Annexure P/5 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the resolution dated 12.08.2006 contained in Annexure P/6. It is contended by the counsel that it is a case where the process of selection against the post of Panchayat Karmi was initiated and during the mid-way of the process, the rules of the game were changed and the minimum eligibility criteria of High School with 10+2 system was changed to Higher Secondary by a resolution dated 12.08.2006 and accordingly, appointment to private respondent No.5 was given. It is contended by the counsel that the law pertaining to the aforesaid aspect is no more res integra inasmuch as the rules of the game cannot be changed once the players have entered into the arena. Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of this Court passed in W.P. No.13743/2007 (Navendra Khamparia v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) vide order dated 04.12.2024 and order dated 24.08.2006 passed by the Gwalior Bench in W.P. No.4066/2006 (Dhyanendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors.).

3 . Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the Gram Panchayat, in exercise of its competence which flows from clause 3.3 of the Panchayat karmi Yojna, prescribed an additional eligibility criteria of Higher Secondary examination and in terms of the same, private respondent No.5, being more meritorious, was appointed as he had scored 66.88% of marks whereas the present petitioner in Higher Secondary had scored 60% of marks. As such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Counsel for private respondent No.5 submitted that a preliminary objection has been filed. As per the said objection, the petition is not maintainable. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner herein previously approached this Court by filing W.P. No.3665/2007. However, vide an order dated 11.04.2007, the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to assail the orders dated 23.12.2006 and 14.02.2007. The petitioner has challenged the resolution at a belated stage, and such a belated challenge is not maintainable. It is contended by the counsel that the impugned order dated 28.06.2011, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, is further appealable and if there exists a remedy of appeal, this petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

6. A perusal of the record reflects that vide order dated 23.12.2006 issued by the Gram Panchayat Karhi Kalan, private respondent No.5 was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi. Challenging the said order and proceedings, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was decided vide an o