Satendra Singh vs Union Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32523
1 WA-2283-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
th
ON THE 26 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2283 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030173512026
SATENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Harshvardhan Topre - Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.
Shri C.P. Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Head on I.A. No.11001/2026, this is an application for condonation of
delay.
2. As per office report, the appeal is barred by 21 days.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.11001/2026
is allowed and the delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
4. This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed
against the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.11006/2021.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
07:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32523
2 WA-2283-2026
5. It is submitted by counsel for appellants that the identical matter

has already been decided by this Court by judgment dated 17.08.2026 passed
in the case of Rajpal Singh Jadon and Others Vs. Union of India & Others in
W.A. No.1919/2026 and the case in hand is covered by the said judgment.
6. This Court in the case of Rajpal Singh Jadon and Others (supra) has
passed the following order :
"This writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005 has been filed against the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 29345/2023 which was
dismissed in the light of order passed by learned Single Judge in
W.P. No. 11006/2021 (Dharmraj Singh Tomar Vs. Union of India
& Others).
2. It is submitted by counsel for appellants that the names for
the post of Guard in bank were forwarded by concerning bank to
Rajya Sainik Board which in its turn informed the appellants.
Appellants along with various other persons participated in the
recruitment process. Appellants were awarded maximum marks.
However, they were not selected on the ground that as per the
guidelines, in case of a tie, i.e., where equal marks are scored by
more than one candidate, the candidate who is younger in age will
be given preference over and above the candidates who are older
in age. It is submitted that although said aspect is mentioned in the
guidelines, but in fact, authorities have acted in mala fide and
biased manner by awarding more marks to even those candidates
who were physically weak.
3. Per contra, counsel for respondents / Bank has supported the
findings recorded by learned Single Judge.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. The bank in its return filed in Writ Petition No. 11006/2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
07:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32523
3 WA-2283-2026
had relied upon the guidelines filed as Annexure R/3 and
submitted that in case "two or more candidates get identical
marks, the candidate younger in age shall be considered higher in
merit". It is fairly conceded by counsel for appellants that these
guidelines are prior in time. Therefore, it is clear that if the bank
had adopted the procedure giving preference to those candidates
who were younger in age, then it cannot be said that said
procedure adopted by the bank was not proper. Otherwise also,
recruitment was on the post of Guard in bank. The criterion of
treating the younger candidate as higher on merit has also not been
challenged. Furthermore, it cannot be treated as irrational.
6. So far as allegation of awarding more marks to weaker
candidate is concerned, the same cannot be considered for the
simple reason that appellants have not impleaded any officer of
the bank / member of recruitment board in their personal capacity.
It is well established principle of law that the allegation of mala
fide or bias cannot be considered in absence of necessary party.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and another
Vs. P.P. Sharma and another , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222
has held as under :-

" 55. It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides
or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nomine as a party
respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to
meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those
allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of
the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a
person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh
and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone
the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation
of mala fides or bias alleged against them....... "
The Supreme Court in the case of Dr.J.N. Banavalikar Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, reported in AIR
1996 SC 326 has held as under:-
" 21......Further, in the absence of impleadment of the junior
doctor who is alleged to have been favoured by the course of
action leading to removal of the appellant and the person who
had allegedly passed mala fide order in order to favour such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
07:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32523
4 WA-2283-2026
junior doctor, any contention of mala fide action in fact i.e.
‘malice in fact’ should not be countenanced by the Court…... "
The Supreme Court in the case of All India State Bank Officers’
Federation and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in
JT 1996 (8) S.C. 550 in para 22, has said where a person, who has
passed the order and against whom the plea of mala fide has been
taken has not been impleaded, the petitioner cannot be allowed to
raise the allegations of mala fide. The relevant observations of the
Apex Court are reproduced as under : -

" 22.…..the person against whom mala fides are alleged must
be made a party to the proceeding. Board of Directors of the
Bank sought to favour respondents 4 and 5 and, therefore,
agreed to the proposal put before it. Neither the Chairman nor
the Directors, who were present in the said meeting, have been
impleaded as respondents. This being so the petitioners cannot
be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide, which
allegations, in fact, are without merit. ”
7. Under these circumstances, when the officers of the bank,
who were the members of recruitment board, have not been
impleaded as party in their personal capacity, then any allegation
of mala fide or arbitrariness on their part cannot be considered at
all.
8. No other argument was advanced by counsel for appellants.
9. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that no case
is made out warranting interference.
10. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed."
7 . Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed in the terms and
conditions of the judgment passed in the case of Rajpal Singh Jadon and
Others (supra).


(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE

Aman
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
07:25:21 PM