Ramesh Katara vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
1
W.P. No. 12994/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 12994 of 2024
RAMESH KATARA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ranjeet Sen - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms.Pranjali Yajurvedi –Dy.G.A for the respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 9165 of 2024
RAHUL KHAPED AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ranjeet Sen - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms.Pranjali Yajurvedi –Dy.G.A for the respondents/State
WITH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
2
W.P. No. 12994/2024
WRIT PETITION No. 9160 of 2024
VENKAT RAO JOSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Suyash Malpani -Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Pranjali Yajurvedi –Dy.G.A for the respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 30/04/2026
Post on : 11/05/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
1. The present batch of Writ Petitions has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the issues involved in
all the matters are similar, all the three writ petitioners are heard
analogously and are being disposed of with this common order. The
facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 12994 of 2024 as the lead
case for the disposal of this bunch of petitions.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners are challenging the
impugned mass termination order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P/1)
passed by Respondent No. 4. By the said impugned order, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
3
W.P. No. 12994/2024
services of the petitioners and 46 similarly situated daily
wagers/part-time workers have been terminated. The petitioners
seek the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to quash the
impugned order dated 04.03.2024. Furthermore, the petitioners pray
for a command to the respondents to allow them to continue their
services at their respective places of posting with all consequential
benefits.
Facts of the Case
3. The State Government, in the exercise of powers conferred
under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, issued a Circular
dated 29.10.1996 in the name of the Governor. This circular
delegated the powers of appointment for the posts of Peon, Cook,
Waterman, and Watchman in primary schools and hostels to the
Block Education Officer (BEO), Principal, and others.
4. Under the said circular, the petitioners were appointed during
the period from 2011 to 2014 on their respective posts by the BEO.
They continued in service with an unblemished record. Earlier, vide
order dated 19.03.2020, their services were terminated, but this
order was subsequently cancelled by Respondent No. 4 on
27.05.2020 after verification of official records.
5. A complaint was later made to the Lokayukt regarding
illegal appointments made by the then BEO, late Shri J.P. Tiwari.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
4
W.P. No. 12994/2024
Consequently, the Collector constituted an enquiry committee.
Based on the enquiry report, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned
mass termination order dated 04.03.2024, terminating the services
of 46 employees on the ground that their appointments were made
without sanctioned posts.
Contentions of the Petitioner
6. The petitioners contend that their appointments were lawful
and strictly in accordance with the Circular dated 29.10.1996. The
appointments were made by the competent authority following
recommendations from the concerned Gram Panchayat. After
rendering 12 to 14 years of unblemished service, the doctrine of
promissory estoppel restrains the respondents from terming the
appointments illegal.
7. It is submitted that the services of the petitioners are
governed by the Madhya Pradesh Daily Wages Employees
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, as acknowledged by the
respondents' own order dated 29.03.2023. Under Rule 10 and Rule
11 of the said Rules, services can only be terminated upon proving
major misconduct through a regular inquiry, which was not
conducted in the present case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
5
W.P. No. 12994/2024
8. The petitioners place heavy reliance on the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Nagar Palika Nigam Ratlam V/s
Moinuddin Qureshi (W.A. No-1412/2018), wherein it was held:
“The services of respondent No.1 are governed under
the Rules of 2013 in which Rule 10 defines the major
misconduct and the services are liable to be removed
by way of punishment if any of the found -proven.
Under Rule 11 also the services are liable to come to
an end if the misconduct defined under rule 10(1) is
found proven however any of the charges leveled
against the petitioners are not falling in sub-Clause 1 of
Rule 10. In order to prove any of the charge, no regular
inquiry has been conducted. Without conducting any
inquiry it cannot be held that the charges have been
found proven. Only by issuing a show cause notice and
calling a reply, it cannot be said that the charges are
found proven hence, the writ court has not committed
any error while setting aside the termination order.
Even otherwise, respondent No. 1 has been reinstated
and he is working for last four years after reinstatement
and there is no complaint about his work”
9. The petitioners further contend that the enquiry report is
perverse because the appointment of the petitioners was made on
the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat, yet no representative
of the Gram Panchayat was included in the enquiry committee. The
termination is stigmatic, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16,
21, and 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
6
W.P. No. 12994/2024
Contentions of the Respondents
10. Per contra , the respondents contend that the petitioners were
appointed merely as part-time workers and not as daily wagers.
Therefore, the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Daily Wages
Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 are not applicable
to them, and no regular inquiry under Rules 10 and 11 was required
prior to termination.
11. The respondents submit that the then BEO, late Shri J.P.
Tiwari, exceeded his jurisdiction and illegally issued appointment
orders for 179 part-time workers between 2011 and 2014 without
adopting prescribed procedures, without approval from higher
authorities, and most critically, without any sanctioned posts.
12. It is asserted that the Collector's enquiry report revealed that
out of 82 employees inducted during that period, 46 were inducted
against no vacant posts. Relying on the State Government's circular
dated 16.05.2007 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi -2006 (4) SCC 1 , the
respondents argue that appointments against non-sanctioned posts
are illegal, void ab initio , and confer no right to regularization or
continuation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
7
W.P. No. 12994/2024
Analysis and Conclusion
13. Heard the rival submissions and perused the record. The
scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in matters of termination is circumscribed, yet this Court is
duty-bound to interfere if the impugned administrative action is
arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of statutory rules and
constitutional guarantees.
14. The petitioners in the present case have been treated as
daily wagers and have been continuously rendering services for
over a decade. Having been classified as permanent, the petitioners
attained the status of permanent employees. Therefore, the
impugned termination order cannot be passed against the petitioners
in a cryptic manner, in violation of the statutory safeguards
enshrined under Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules of 2013 and Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India.
15. The foundation of the impugned termination is the enquiry
report, which concluded that out of 82 employees inducted between
2011 and 2014, 46 were inducted against no vacant posts. However,
a glaring discrepancy exists; there are no documents produced and
no reason assigned to demonstrate how, out of the 82 employees,
only these 46 were selectively identified as having been appointed
against non-sanctioned posts.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
8
W.P. No. 12994/2024
16. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the initial
appointments were made upon the recommendation of the Gram
Panchayat. Despite this, the enquiry committee evaluating the
legality of these appointments did not include any representative
from the Gram Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat. This procedural
lapse renders the findings of the enquiry committee fundamentally
flawed and bad in law.
17. The respondents have placed heavy reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra)
arguing that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment
is a basic constitutional feature, and appointments not made in
terms of relevant rules against sanctioned posts confer no rights on
the appointee.
18. However, the application of Umadevi (Supra) must be
understood in its proper perspective. As elucidated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826, held as under:-
“26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)
sought to curtail the practice of backdoor
entries and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that
its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-
serving employees. This judgment aimed to
distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
9
W.P. No. 12994/2024
appointments. It categorically held that
employees in irregular appointments, who were
engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had
served continuously for more than ten years,
should be considered for regularization as a
one-time measure. However, the laudable intent
of the judgment is being subverted when
institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately
reject the claims of employees, even in cases
where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural
formalities. Government departments often cite
the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue
that no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases
where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment's
spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it
against employees who have rendered
indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our
opinion, it is imperative for government
departments to lead by example in providing
fair and stable employment. Engaging workers
on a temporary basis for extended periods,
especially when their roles are integral to the
organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but
also exposes the organization to legal
challenges and undermines employee morale.
By ensuring fair employment practices,
government institutions can reduce the burden
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
10
W.P. No. 12994/2024
of unnecessary litigation, promote job security,
and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This
approach aligns with international standards
and sets a positive precedent for the private
sector to follow, thereby contributing to the
overall betterment of labour practices in the
country.”
19. It is imperative, as mandated in Jaggo (Supra) , for
government departments to lead by example in providing fair and
stable employment. Engaging workers for extended periods when
their roles are integral, only to unceremoniously terminate them
after 13 years under the garb of unsanctioned posts without
furnishing precise comparative documentation is highly arbitrary
and violates the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India.
20. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and legal
pronouncements, the impugned mass termination cannot be
sustained in the eyes of the law. The respondents failed to conduct a
proper inquiry under the Rules of 2013 and failed to justify the
selective classification of the petitioners' posts as unsanctioned.
21. Consequently, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The
impugned termination order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P/1)
passed by Respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13583
11
W.P. No. 12994/2024
22. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in
service at their respective places of posting forthwith, along with all
consequential benefits. Compliance with this order shall be ensured
within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
23 . Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly. Let a
copy of this order be placed in connected writ petitions.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/11/2026
4:49:49 PM