##PAGE1##

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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL th ON THE 28 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 2437 of 2026 CNR No.: MPHC010488102026 ASHUTOSH KUMAR TRIPATHI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Siddhant Kochar - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Darshan Soni G.A. for the State.

Ms. Warija Ghildiyal, Advocate for respondent No. 7.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal This present appeal is directed against the order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 13474 of 2017 whereby the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant applied for the post of Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Parasi, Janpad Panchayat Gangev, Rewa, and stood first in the provisional merit list dated 04.08.2014. The original application required only a domicile certificate and did not require submission of the voter list or voter ID. Pursuant to the provisional merit list, the appellant submitted his voter list and voter ID within the prescribed seven-day period, on 08.08.2014 before the Gram Panchayat and on 09.08.2014 before the Janpad Panchayat, duly obtaining acknowledgments. However, the documents were not forwarded by the Janpad Panchayat officials, resulting in rejection of his candidature and appointment of respondent No.7.

3. The Collector, Rewa, after examining the record and the report of the Jila Panchayat, vide order dated 17.11.2015, found the appellant eligible and held that the lapse was attributable to the Janpad Panchayat officials. The Additional Commissioner, however, set aside the said order vide order dated 09.02.2017. The Writ Petition challenging the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 17.06.2026, giving rise to the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the material evidence, particularly the acknowledged receipts dated 08.08.2014 and 09.08.2014, which established timely submission of the voter list and voter ID. The appellant cannot be penalized for the subsequent administrative lapse of the Janpad Panchayat officials.

5. It is further submitted that respondent No.7 was similarly permitted to rely upon the domicile certificate at the initial stage, and therefore rejection of the appellant's candidature on the ground of non- submission of the voter list with the original application was discriminatory. The appellant was the most meritorious candidate, and his name was admittedly included in the voter list of the concerned Gram Panchayat on the relevant date.

6. According to the appellant, Clause 4.3 and Annexure-2 of the advertisement did not mandate submission of the voter ID with the original application, and his local residence was otherwise duly established. Reliance is also placed upon Dheerendra Singh v. UPSC, (2017) 11 SCC 276 and Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752, to contend that mere non-production of a document, when the candidate otherwise possessed the requisite eligibility on the relevant date, should not defeat his claim. On these grounds, it is submitted that the orders dated 17.06.2026 and 09.02.2017 deserve to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6 submits that, although the appellant/writ petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 in the provisional merit list dated 04.08.2014, he failed to produce the requisite voter list and voter ID within the prescribed seven-day period. The advertisement specifically required the candidate to be a resident of the concerned Gram Panchayat and his name to be registered in its Electoral Roll.

8. It is contended that the documents subsequently produced by the appellant/ writ petitioner did not establish timely compliance, as the date of submission was manipulated. The Additional Commissioner, after examining the record, rightly found that the