IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI ON THE 15^th OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 49437 of 2025 SATYABIR SINGH Versus M.P. INDUSTRIAL DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

AND ANOTHER Appearance:

Shri A.K. Sethi - Senior Advocate with Shri Ayush Gupta-

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Manoj Munshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Kushagra Singh – Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Aviral Vikas Khare- Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

O R D E R

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

“7A. The reappointment order dated 02.12.2025 of respondent no.2 in the respondent no.1 corporation as In charge Chief Engineer (Annexure P/3) may kindly be ordered to be quashed.

7B. The advertisement dated 02.12.2025 for appointment on deputation on the post of Chief Engineer issued by respondent no.1 corporation (Annexure P/4) may kindly ordered to be quashed.

7C. The respondent no.1 corporation be directed to appoint/promote the petitioner on the post of Chief Engineer as per his seniority.

7D. The petitioner be awarded cost of the petition.

7E. Any other and further relief, as may be deemed fit may be granted to the petitioner.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is presently working as an Executive Engineer in the Regional Office, Indore, of Respondent No.1 Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation (MPIDC) holding the said post since 19/08/2014 and as per the gradation list published by Respondent No.1 his position as on 01/04/2025 stands at Serial No.1 in the cadre of Executive Engineers.

3. It is further the case of petitioner that respondent No.2 was substantively holding the post of Executive Engineer and was earlier entrusted with the charge of Chief Engineer (In-charge) in the Corporation. Respondent No.2 who attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30/11/2025, as reflected from the retirement order dated 28/11/2025.

4. According to the petitioner, upon the retirement of Respondent No.2, the petitioner being the senior-most Executive Engineer and the only available officer in the feeder cadre was entitled to be entrusted with the charge of Chief Engineer (In-charge). However, instead of doing so, Respondent No.1, by order dated 02/12/2025, re-appointed Respondent No.2 on a contractual basis for a period of six months or till further orders, to work as Chief Engineer (In-charge).

5. It is further contended by the petitioner that on the same date, i.e. 02/12/2025, Respondent No.1 also issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Chief Engineer on deputation from Government departments, namely PWD/RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES (RES)/PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE), with the last date being 19/12/2025.

6. The petitioner contends that both the contractual re-appointment of Respondent No.2 and the advertisement for deputation are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the Madhya Pradesh Trade & Investment Facilitation Corporation (TRIFAC), Rules 2017 ( for short „TRIFAC Rules, 2017) particularly when an eligible and senior officer was available within the Corporation itself. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the re-appointment order and the advertisement dated 02/12/2025 with a prayer to appoint/post the petitioner as Chief Engineer (In-charge).

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the senior-most Executive Engineer, possesses all requisite qualifications, and has more than five years experience, and therefore ought to have been posted as Chief Engineer (In-charge) upon the retirement of Respondent No.2. It is contended that the action of re- appointing a retired officer on contract, bypassing an available senior officer, is per se arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. It is further submitted by Shri A.K. Sethi that Respondent No.1 is governed by th