Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1115 (MP)

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramdeen Dhakad

2022-09-09

SHEEL NAGU, VIRENDER SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sheel Nagu, J. - The aforesaid writ appeals being W.A. No.1821/2018, W.A. No.1611/2018 and W.A. No.1818/2018 arise out of common order of the learned Single Judge of Bench at Gwalior dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P. No.8004/2018 (Ramdeen Dhakad & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.), W.P. No.7846/2018 (Raja Ram Singh Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs The State of M.P. & Ors.) and W.P. No.5203/2018 (Rajkumar Dandotiya & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.) respectively granting relief to petitioners therein in terms of the order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, Bench at Gwalior in the case of Manmohan Mathur and Others Vs. State of M.P. in W.P. No.1102/2010 which was subsequently affirmed not only by the Division Bench by dismissing W.A. No.185/2013 on 06.05.2013 but also by the Apex Court by dismissing SLP of the State in limine. 1.1 W.A. No.316/2018 arises out of order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.P. No.11097/2013 (Smt. Shaheen Anjum Vs. State of M.P. and others). 2. Learned counsel for appellants/State is heard on the question of admission. 3. The order of the learned Single Judge impugned herein is passed on the settled principles of service jurisprudence that the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun. It is trite that once the process of recruitment commences by issuance of advertisement, the procedure prescribed for holding the recruitment and the stipulations regarding qualification for selection even if changed would not apply to the ongoing selection. In the case at hand, the selection process commenced in the year 2008 in which the respondents participated. However, in October, 2009 executive orders were passed introducing a new eligibility criteria which were later incorporated in the statutory recruitment rules w.e.f. 04.01.2010. 3.1 The first batch of petitions including W.P. No.1102/2010 (Manmohan Mathur and others Vs. State of M.P. & others) and other connected matters was allowed by a common order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge at the Gwalior Bench of this Court. While doing so, the learned Single Judge followed the earlier order passed by the principal seat of this Court rendered in the case of Anil Bhatt and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) reported in 2012(2) MPLJ 82 . 4. While doing so, the learned Single Judge followed the earlier order passed by the principal seat of this Court rendered in the case of Anil Bhatt and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) reported in 2012(2) MPLJ 82 . 4. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has followed the earlier decisions rendered in the case of Anil Bhatt (supra) and Manmohan Mathur (supra). Pertinently the decision rendered in the bunch of petitions including that of Manmohan Mathur (supra) received stamp of approval by the Apex Court by dismissal of SLP preferred by the State. 5. In view of aforesaid facts which are not disputed by the learned counsel for State, in the aforesaid factual backdrop and the settled principle of service jurisprudence, the impugned order appears to have been rightly passed by the learned Single Bench and, therefore, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the same. 5.1 Before parting it would be appropriate to deal with the ground of non-grant of opportunity to the State of being heard. 5.2 Learned counsel submits that before passing of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge, notices were issued to the State in all the writ petitions but before notices could be served, the impugned order came to be passed. 5.3 In this regard, the impugned order reflects the name of Shri Raghvendra Dixit as Government Advocate who appeared for the State. The record reveals that no such objection was taken before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the State is now estopped from taking any such objection. Moreso no prejudice is shown by the State, that if opportunity was afforded the result of writ petition would have been different. 5.4 A feeble attempt is made by the learned counsel for State by contending that the judgment in Manmohan Mathur (supra) was rendered at the time when any statutory Rules of 2005 had not been amended and since such amendment was made retrospective in its operation i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2008, the judgment in the case of Manmohan Mathur (supra) was of no avail to the respondents herein. 5.5 In regard to the aforesaid ground, it is seen from the record that admittedly the learned Single Judge while deciding the case of Manmohan Mathur (supra) and others was dealing with the changed criteria made by way of an executive instruction during the ongoing process of recruitment. 5.5 In regard to the aforesaid ground, it is seen from the record that admittedly the learned Single Judge while deciding the case of Manmohan Mathur (supra) and others was dealing with the changed criteria made by way of an executive instruction during the ongoing process of recruitment. It is further not disputed that the amendment in the statutory Rules made retrospectively, was not before the Single Bench in the case of Manmohan Mathur (supra) and, therefore, the said Single Judge had no occasion to deal with the legality and validity of the same. 5.6 The aforesaid ground of the State need not detain this Court since the said ground appears to be not raised before the Single Bench by the State and, therefore, rightly not decided while passing the impugned order, this Court thus refrains from entering into the legality and validity of this particular ground and leaves it to the State to press the same in pending writ petitions, however subject to the binding effect of the dismissal of the writ appeal and the SLP filed by the State earlier. 6. In the conspectus of above discussion, this Court declines interference with the observation and liberty as mentioned above. 7. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and liberty, all the writ appeals stand dismissed.