Pooran Singh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
1 WP-35990-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 35990 of 2026
POORAN SINGH JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nakul Khedkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the respondent authority may kindly be directed to issue
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order
dated 10.08.2026 passed by respondent no. 4 to extent it denied
the appointment of the petitioner.
(ii) That, issue writ of mandamus directing respondent to issue
appointment order in favor of the petitioner for the post of Gram
Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Baurana, Janpad Panchayat
Pohari, District Shivpuri from the date Rajendra Singh Jatav was
illegally appointed, along with all consequential seniority and
benefits.
(iii) That any other relief to which this Hon'ble court may deem fit
may also be directed to be exempted in favour of the petitioners in
the interest of justice.
(iv) That the costs of this petition be also awarded to the
petitioners."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an advertisement
was issued under Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Scheme for
appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak (Contract) at Gram
Bhaurana, Janpad Panchayat Pohari, District Shivpuri and petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
2 WP-35990-2026
applied for the said post on 22.06.2012. Thereafter, petitioner and other
candidates have participated in the selection process and thereafter merit list
was prepared and petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 2 and one Rajendra Singh
Jatav was placed at Sr.No.1. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.12.2012,
Rajendra Singh Jatav was appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. It
is submitted that Rajendra Singh Jatav was having forged and fabricated
marksheet of computer diploma, therefore, petitioner filed a complaint before
respondent authority, but no action was taken, thereafter, petitioner filed the
appeal before respondent No. 4, i.e., Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat, Shivpuri and the said appeal was dismissed on the ground of
limitation. Against the dismissal of appeal, petitioner filed a revision before
Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior. The said revision was partly
allowed vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P-7) and the matter was
remanded back to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri.
Thereafter, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri passed the
impugned order dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P-1) and quashed/set aside the
appointment of Rajendra Singh Jatav and instead of giving appointment to
the petitioner as petitioner was at Sr. No. 2 in the merit list, denied the
appointment to the petitioner on the ground that validity of selection list has
already been expired.
3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during the
pendency of waiting list, merit list had been issued in the year 2012 and
petitioner had already approached before the respondents during validity
period of merit list, therefore, relief could not be declined to the petitioner on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
3 WP-35990-2026
the ground that select/merit list has already been expired. It is submitted that
Rajendra Singh Jatav had submitted resignation on 01.05.2013 and once
Rajendra Singh Jatav had already submitted the resignation, then petitioner
must be appointed as his name had been mentioned at Sr. No. 2 in the merit
list. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment dated 23.01.2015
passed by this Court at Indore in W.P. No.1062/2011 (Pallavi Shukla Vs.
State of M.P. and others).
3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Rajendra
Singh Jatav has not been appeared before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat, Shivpuri and as the petitioner was second in the merit list and
once it has been proved by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat,
Shivpuri that Rajendra Singh Jatav submitted forged and fabricated
documents, then petitioner has right to be posted on the post of Gram Rojgar
Sahayak and he cannot be denied on the ground that select/merit list has
already been expired.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the
impugned order and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is having alternative remedy to
prefer an appeal before the competent appellate authority.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is gathered that pursuant to an
advertisement issued for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak
(Contract) at Gram Bhaurana, Janpad Panchayat Pohari, District Shivpuri,
petitioner applied on 22.06.2012 and was placed second in the merit list,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
4 WP-35990-2026
while Rajendra Singh Jatav was placed first and appointed on 26.12.2012.
The petitioner alleged that Rajendra Singh Jatav had submitted a forged
computer diploma marksheet and, after his complaints were not acted upon,
pursued an appeal and revision. The revision was partly allowed on
05.04.2023, remanding the matter to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat, Shivpuri. Thereafter, by order dated 10.08.2026, the appointment
of Rajendra Singh Jatav was cancelled on the ground of forged documents,
but the petitioner was denied appointment on the ground that the merit/select
list had expired. Petitioner had approached the authorities during the validity
of the merit list and that Rajendra Singh Jatav had resigned on 01.05.2013,
therefore, being second in merit, the petitioner ought to have been appointed
against the vacant post and could not be denied relief merely because the
merit list had subsequently expired. Reliance was placed on the judgment
dated 23.01.2015 in Pallavi Shukla v. State of M.P. & Others , W.P.
No.1062/2011. Relevant paragraphs thereof read as under:-
"19. Considering the submissions, the record and the arguments
put forth by the Counsel for the respondent No.3/M.P. Public
Service Commission, I find that it was obvious that the Public
Service is not inclined to grant its consent, therefore, the vital
issue to be considered is whether the waiting list was valid on the
date of the representation of the petitioner on resignation tendered
by Mr. Rakesh Singh Markan on 18.06.2012. Considering the
ratio laid down in Writ Appeal No. 494/2010 (Annexure P/21) the
Division Bench categorically held that the waiting list pertaining
to vacancies advertised in the said advertisement issued by the
M.P. Public Service Commission was valid for the period of 18
months. This fact has also been fortified by the letters issued by
the Deputy Secretary, M.P. Home Department annexed along with
the petition as Annexure P/19 which stated that from the date of
first list i.e.29.11.2010; the wait list was valid up to 29.05.2011.
However, since an amended list was subsequently issued on
01.10.2011, the wait list was also valid up to 01.07.2012. and in
these terms, the representation of the petitioner was found to be
well within the time period of the wait list. I fail to understand that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
5 WP-35990-2026
if the original list has been amended due to leaving out the in-
service candidates, the mistake was accepted by the State Govt.
and duly corrected then why the benefit cannot be given to a
meritorious candidate who apparently is at No.1 in the wait list.
Similarly another seat has fallen vacant by the resignation of Mr.
Rakesh Singh Markan and the Home Department was fully willing
to consider the petitioner for the said post.
20. It is also noteworthy that it is not the contention of the
respondent No.3/M.P. Public Service Commission that the
petitioner had not applied for the post in the same advertisement
(as per ratio of W.A. No.494/2010) or that the petitioner was not
eligible for the post of Dy.S.P. and the entire career of meritorious
candidate is at stake.
21.On minutely scrutinising the facts also this Court has come to
the conclusion that the petitioner had first applied on 01.03.2012
to the Home Department for consideration of her appointment as
Dy. S.P. in place of Shri Rakesh Singh Markan and a formal
representation was also filed on 18.06.2012 well within the
extended valid period of the wait list i.e., 01.07.2012. Then it
cannot be said that an extension was required under the
circumstances for extending the validity of the wait list further and
in these circumstances, I find that the cases cited by the Counsel
for the respondent/M.P. Public Service Commission are of no use
to him.
22. Moreover the cases cited are of no help to the respondent
No.3/M.P. Public Service Commission also primarily because
Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees to give
equality to all the citizens and if the in-house candidates were
included late in the select list and the select list duly amended;
then, there is no reason why the present petitioner cannot be
considered against a post lying vacant and in the light of the fact
that a valid claim has been made by the petitioner well within the
time. She has filed her representation immediately two days after
the resignation of Shri Rakesh Singh Markan to the post Dy.
Superintendent of Police. Her case has also been recommended by
the Home Department and I do not find any good ground for
rejecting her claim either on merits or the fact that the validity of
the wait list had expired when actually the corrigendum or
amended list would grant equal opportunity to the present
petitioner also. In this light, I find that the petition needs to be
allowed.
23. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The respondent
No.3/M.P. Public Service Commission is directed to give
appropriate directions to the Home Department for considering the
candidature of the present petitioner/Pallavi Shukla to the post of
Dy. S.P. if she is otherwise eligible for the post. Let the entire
exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
6 WP-35990-2026
of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is
allowed to the extent herein above indicated.
No costs."
7. The Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in the
case of Shailesh Kumar Sonwane Vs. State of M.P. and others [W.P.
No.4792/2020, decided on 09.09.2021] has held as under:-
"12. A candidate in the waiting list, as per his position in the list,
has right to be considered for appointment if for any reason the
post falls vacant during the validity period of the list. Such a right
is not a vested right but it is only a right to be considered for
appointment. The appointing authority can deny appointment for
some justifiable reason to such a candidate. In the matter of
Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association(supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the meaning of waiting list
by clarifying that a waiting list prepared in service matters by the
competent authority is a list of eligible and qualified candidates
who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate.
Such lists are prepared either under the Rules or even otherwise
mainly to ensure that the working in the office does not suffer if
the selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason or
the next selection or examination is not held soon. A wait list
candidate has no vested right except the right to claim that he may
be appointed if for any reason one or other selected candidates
does not join. Supreme Court in the matter of Surinder Singh and
others (Supra) has held that a waiting list cannot be used as a
perennial source of recruitment for filling up the vacancy not
advertised. The candidate in the waiting list has no vested right to
be appointed except to the limited extent that when a candidate
selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reason
and the waiting list is still operative.
13. In the matter of S. Gonvindaraju (Supra), Supreme Court has
held that once a candidate is selected and his name is included in
the select list for appointment in accordance with the Regulation,
he gets a right to be considered for appointment as and when the
vacancy arises. In the matter of R.S. Mittal (Supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further clarified that although a person on the
select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for
which he has been selected, the appointing authority cannot ignore
the select panel or on its whims decline to make the appointment.
When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there
is a vacancy which can be offered to him keeping in view his
merit position then ordinarily there is no justification for ignoring
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
7 WP-35990-2026
him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to
decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel.
14. Thus, from the aforesaid pronouncements, it is clear that if
name of a candidate is included in the select list, he has a right to
be considered for appointment but the appointment can
be declined for justifiable reason. In the present case, the name of
the petitioners were included in the waiting list, the respondents
have offered appointment to the candidate upto Sr. No.42 in the
waiting list of UR category. The posts are lying vacant against
which remaining wait listed candidates can be considered for
appointment."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1997) 8 SCC 488 (Surinder Singh
and others vs. State of Punjab and another), (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 591
(Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association vs. State of Gujarat and
others), (1999) SCC Online Rajasthan 241 (Ram Babu Koli Vs. Zila Parishad
Sawai Madhopur), (1986) 3 SCC 273 (S. Govindaraju Vs. Karnataka SRTC
and another) and (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 230 (R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of
India), has held that a candidate included in the waiting list has a right to be
considered for appointment according to his position in the list if, for any
reason, a post falls vacant during the validity of the list. It has further been
held that though such candidate does not possess a vested right to
appointment, the waiting list is intended, inter alia, to meet a contingency
where a selected candidate does not join and that the authority cannot ignore
the claim of a candidate in the select/waiting list arbitrarily when a vacancy
is available against the advertised post. The aforesaid principle is also
consistent with the view taken by this Court in Pallavi Shukla (supra),
wherein, in the facts of that case, the Court held that where the candidate
next in merit had approached the authorities during the subsistence of the
waiting list in respect of a vacancy caused by resignation of the selected
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
8 WP-35990-2026
candidate, her claim could not subsequently be defeated merely on the
ground that the validity of the waiting list had expired.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive
Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC
591 in para 8 has held as under:—
"8. Coming to the next issue, the first question is what is a waiting
list? Can it be treated as a source of recruitment from which
candidates may be drawn as and when necessary?; and lastly how
long can it operate? These are some important questions which do
arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A waiting
list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list
of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are
placed below the last selected candidate. How it should operate
and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is
linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared.
For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10
candidates for 1990 and the competent authority prepares a
waiting list then it is in respect of those 10 seats only for which
selection or competition was held. Reason for it is that whenever
selection is held, except where it is for single post, it is normally
held by taking into account not only the number of vacancies
existing on the date when advertisement is issued or applications
are invited but even those which are likely to arise in future within
one year or so due to retirement etc. It is more so where selections
are held regularly by the Commission. Such lists are prepared
either under the rules or even otherwise mainly to ensure that the
working in the office does not suffer if the selected candidates do
not join for one or the other reason or the next selection or
examination is not held soon. A candidate in the waiting list in the
order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one
or the other selected candidate does not join. But once the selected
candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for
any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the
rules or within reasonable period where no specific period is
provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim
appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the
selection was held for it. He has no vested right except to the
limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority
acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by
picking and choosing for extraneous reasons.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. The abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court is applicable in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
9 WP-35990-2026
present case. Here also, the vacancy has occurred on account of removal
from service of Rajendra Singh Jatav. Thus, in the words of the Apex Court,
the present petitioner has a right to claim his appointment. The Supreme
Court in para 9 of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers'
Association (supra) further held that a waiting list prepared in an
examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of
recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected
candidates does not join, then the person from the waiting list may be pushed
up and be appointed. Since in the present case also vacancy has occurred on
account of removal from service of Rajendra Singh Jatav on the
complaint/appeal filed by the petitioner. Thus, the decision of Gujarat State
Dy. Executive Engineers' Association (supra) is fully applicable in the
present case.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar v. Jot Ram reported
in (1976) 1 SCC 194, it has been held that right to relief must be judged to
exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceedings and since
petitioner submitted appeal before respondent during the currency of the
validity period, the petitioner would be entitled to the relief which was
available to him. This is an emphatic statement that the right of a party is
determined by the facts as they exist on the date the action is instituted.
Granting the presence of such facts, then he is entitled to its enforcement.
Later developments cannot defeat his right because, had the Court found his
facts to be true the day he sued he would have got his relief. The
Court's/Appellate Authority procedural delays cannot deprive him of legal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
10 WP-35990-2026
justice or rights crystallized in the initial cause of action. The Apex Court
placed reliance on its earlier decision in this regard Bhajan Lal v. State of
Punjab, (1971) 1 SCC 34. At this juncture it would be condign to place
reliance on the well-known maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” and in
that regard it would be profitable to rely decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Kishan alias Krishan Kumar v. Manof Kumar, (1998) 2 SCC 710 :
AIR 1998 SC 999 (Para 14) and Mohammed Gazi v. State of M.P., (2000) 4
SCC 342 : AIR 2000 SC 1806. In the case of Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. ,
(2003) 1 SCC 726 the Apex Court again reiterated the same principle as
decided in the case of Rameshwar (supra) that a plaintiff or petitioner having
been found entitled to a right to relief, the Court would as an ordinary rule
try to place the successful party in the same position in which he would have
been if the wrong complained against would not have been done to him. The
delay in final decision cannot, in any manner, be attributed to the petitioner.
12. Once the post had fallen vacant by cancellation of selection of
Rajendra Singh Jatav, then it was the duty of the respondents to grant offer
of appointment to the petitioner. For the own latches of the respondents, the
petitioner cannot be made to suffer and it is not the case of respondents that
the respondents did not intend to fill up the post and they wanted to keep post
vacant.
13. Considering the aforesaid, respondents are directed to appoint the
petitioner on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Bhaurana,
Janpad Panchayat Pohari, District Shivpuri if the petitioner is found
otherwise eligible. However, the petitioner is not entitled for the backwages
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26524
11 WP-35990-2026
on the principle of "no work no pay".
14. Present petition has been decided on the basis of fact that Rajendra
Singh Jatav had not appeared before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat, Shivpuri at the time of passing the order dated 10.08.2026 and
also on the basis of fact that Rajendra Singh Jatav had already been removed
from service by order dated 16.09.2020 on account of submission of forged
and fabricated documents. However, if Rajendra Singh Jatav is having any
grievance, then he is free to move review petition before this Court and this
Court will consider and pass appropriate order on it.
15. Furthermore, if any wrong fact has been submitted by the
petitioner, then the State is also granted liberty to file review petition.
16. With aforesaid, present petition is disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Abhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM