Anurag Mishra vs Rajkumar Sharma Alias Raju

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13008
1 WP-1597-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
nd
ON THE 22 OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1597 of 2026
ANURAG MISHRA
Versus
RAJKUMAR SHARMA ALIAS RAJU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhisehk Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Dharmendra Nayak Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
Shri Nirmal Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
i) Orders (Annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed and the order
dtd:22.12.2010 (Ann. P/9), directed previously be this Hon'ble
court in its order dtd:21.02.2018 (Ann. P/12) & order
dtd:26.09.2024 (P/18) may kindly be directed to be complied with;
ii) Respondent no.5 may kindly be directed to complete the
process of fresh appointment in a time bound manner;
iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit. in the
interest of justice.
2. In the connected matter in Writ Petition No. 1600 of 2026 (Anurag
Mishra Vs. Virendra Kumar Sharma alias Guddu and others), this Court has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 09-05-2026
16:49:58

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13008
2 WP-1597-2026
passed an order today. The operative part of the order reads as under:

9. It is not in dispute that the foundational record pertaining to the
alleged appointment of Respondent No.1 as Pujari is not available.
The original appointment file, original proceedings and primary
record forming basis of such appointment have admittedly not
been produced before the authorities or before this Court. The
Collector, while passing order dated 20.12.2010, had specifically
noticed disappearance and non-availability of the original record
and therefore directed initiation of fresh appointment proceedings.
The said order was subsequently revived by this Court in W.P.
No.3077/2011 with a categorical direction to the Collector to
proceed further from the stage where the matter had been left.
10. This Court further finds that in subsequent proceedings arising
out of W.P. No.6413/2022, decided on 26.09.2024, it was
specifically observed that unless any substantial new material
beyond the earlier enquiry report came on record, the only proper
course available to the authorities was to proceed for fresh
appointment in accordance with law. The purpose behind such
direction was to ensure fairness, transparency and equal
participation to all eligible persons.
11. However, despite repeated observations and directions issued
by this Court, the learned Additional Commissioner, by the
impugned order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P/1), has once again
upheld the disputed appointment of Respondent No.1 primarily on
the basis of subsequent correspondence, revenue entries and
administrative communications, even though the foundational
appointment record itself remains unavailable. Such an approach,
in the considered opinion of this Court, is contrary to the earlier
directions issued by this Court and cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law.
12. This Court further finds that after remand no substantial new
material or evidence was brought on record by Respondent No.1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 09-05-2026
16:49:58

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13008
3 WP-1597-2026
so as to justify reversal of the Collector's view regarding fresh
appointment. The impugned order therefore travels beyond the
scope of remand and virtually nullifies the earlier binding
directions issued by this Court.
13. The contention of Respondent No.1 that long continuance in
service itself validates the appointment also cannot be accepted in
absence of the original and lawful appointment record. Mere
subsequent recognition or administrative correspondence cannot
substitute a valid appointment proceeding. At the same time, this
Court is also of the view that fresh appointment proceedings
would not prejudice Respondent No.1 in any manner because he
shall also be entitled to participate in such process subject to
eligibility and governing rules.
14. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the
learned Additional Commissioner suffers from legal infirmity, is
contrary to the earlier orders passed by this Court and therefore
deserves to be quashed.
15. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is hereby quashed
and set aside.
16. The respondent authorities are directed to comply with the
directions already issued by this Court in W.P. No.6413/2022
decided on 26.09.2024 and proceed further for fresh appointment
to the post of Pujari of Shri Vankhandeshwar Mahadev Temple
strictly in accordance with law, government policy and applicable
rules.
17. It is further directed that the process of fresh appointment be
completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All
eligible persons, including the petitioner as well as Respondent
No.1, shall be at liberty to participate in the fresh appointment

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 09-05-2026
16:49:58

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13008
4 WP-1597-2026
process subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions.
18. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

3. In view of the detailed order passed today by this Court in Writ
Petition No.1600 of 2026 (Anurag Mishra Vs. Virendra Kumar Sharma alias
Guddu and others), wherein the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 has
already been quashed and the respondent authorities have been directed to
proceed with the process of fresh appointment to the post of Pujari of Shri
Vankhandeshwar Mahadev Temple strictly in accordance with law,
government policy and applicable rules, no further adjudication is required in
the present petition. This Court, while passing the order in the connected
matter, has specifically held that the foundational record relating to the
appointment is not available and that, in absence of the original appointment
record, continuation of the disputed appointment cannot be sustained merely
on the basis of subsequent correspondence, revenue entries or administrative
communications. It has further been directed that the respondent authorities
shall proceed for fresh appointment expeditiously and preferably within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order,
while permitting all eligible persons, including the parties therein, to
participate in the fresh appointment process subject to fulfillment of
eligibility conditions.
4. Since the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely
covered by the findings and directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition
No.1600 of 2026, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of and
subject to the directions contained in the order passed today in the aforesaid
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 09-05-2026
16:49:58

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13008
5 WP-1597-2026
connected matter. The respondent authorities shall ensure strict compliance

of the directions issued therein within the time stipulated by this Court.
5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
6. A copy of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1600 of 2026
(Anurag Mishra Vs. Virendra Kumar Sharma alias Guddu and others) be
kept in the record of this case.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 09-05-2026
16:49:58