Amit Mandekar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
1 WP-27914-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 27914 of 2024
AMIT MANDEKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Piyush Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anushka Bhargav - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Mr. Amit Raizada, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"A. To, quash the impugned order dt. 06.06.2024
(Annexure P/1), in relation to petitioner only.
B. To, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to
join and continued on the post of Deputy Superintend of
Police at Mandsour or anywhere.
C. To, direct the respondent to give breathing from
education time to secure noc department.
D. To pass any other appropriate order as may be
deemed fit, just & expedient in the interest of justice."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
2 WP-27914-2024
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had

participated in the State Service Examination, 2019 conducted by the
Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and was ultimately selected for
appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (General Duty).
Pursuant thereto, an appointment/posting order dated 24.01.2024 was issued,
whereby the petitioner was posted at Mandsaur. The petitioner was already
serving in the Education Department and, therefore, was required to obtain a
No Objection Certificate from his parent department before joining the
newly offered post. According to learned counsel, the petitioner obtained an
NOC dated 29.01.2024 and was throughout willing to join the post.
Learned counsel further submits that the selection list prepared
pursuant to the State Service Examination, 2019 had a validity of 12 months
under the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015. It is,
therefore, contended that the petitioner's selection remained alive when the
impugned order dated 06.06.2024 was passed.
It is further submitted that the respondents could not have closed his
right of appointment during the subsistence of the select list, particularly
without affording an opportunity of hearing. No show-cause notice was
issued to the petitioner before cancellation of his appointment. The impugned
action has civil consequences and, therefore, the principles of natural justice
were necessarily required to be followed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the
decision of this Court in Sanjay Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others, W.A. No.478 of 2021, decided on 12.07.2021, particularly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
3 WP-27914-2024
paragraphs 22 and 23, to contend that even where a statutory or contractual

provision provides for a deeming consequence, an action having civil
consequences cannot ordinarily be sustained without following the principles
of natural justice. Reliance has also been placed upon the order in Saurabh
Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, W.P. No.6527 of 2016,
decided on 20.04.2018, to contend that the subsistence of the select list and
the period available for joining are material considerations.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents/State
submits that the petitioner's appointment was made subject to specific terms
and conditions contained in the appointment order dated 24.01.2024. Under
Clause 2 thereof, the petitioner was required to join at the place of posting
within 15 days and thereafter proceed for the prescribed training. The
petitioner admittedly did not join within the stipulated period.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has adopted the stand
taken by the State and submits that the petitioner is seeking to confuse two
entirely different concepts, namely, the validity of the selection list and the
period prescribed for joining pursuant to an appointment order and the
selection list remained valid for 12 months did not confer an unrestricted
right upon the petitioner to join at any time during those 12 months.
It is further submitted that Rule 13(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Police
Executive (Gazetted) Services Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000
specifically provides that the order of appointment shall be cancelled if the
candidate does not join within the period specified in the appointment order.
Thus, cancellation of the petitioner's appointment was the consequence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
4 WP-27914-2024
expressly contemplated by the statutory Rules and the appointment order.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been able to establish
any valid order extending the period of joining. Although the petitioner relies
upon the NOC dated 29.01.2024, there is no material showing that, despite
obtaining the NOC, he actually joined the post within the stipulated period or
any competent authority granted him extension of time to join.
It is also submitted that the case of respondent No.5 cannot be
compared with that of the petitioner, as respondent No.5 has placed on
record documents showing that he was posted by order dated 12.03.2025,
thereafter pursued the matter for obtaining NOC, received NOC on
04.04.2025, was relieved on 05.04.2025 and joined on 07.04.2025,
06.04.2025 being Sunday. It is thus contended that there was no
discrimination.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The undisputed factual position which emerges from the record is that
the petitioner was selected pursuant to the State Service Examination, 2019
for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (General Duty). Pursuant to
such selection, the competent authority issued the appointment/posting order
dated 24.01.2024, whereby the petitioner was posted at Mandsaur. The
appointment order specifically required the selected candidates to join their
respective places of posting within 15 days and further contemplated their
subsequent participation in the prescribed training. The order also contained
a specific consequence in the event of failure to join within the stipulated
period.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
5 WP-27914-2024
It is not the case of the petitioner that he actually joined at Mandsaur

within the prescribed period of 15 days. On the contrary, the petitioner's own
case is that he was required to obtain an NOC from the Education
Department and he was facing certain difficulties in obtaining/acting upon
such NOC. Thus, the foundational fact that the petitioner did not join within
the period prescribed in the appointment order is not in serious dispute.
The petitioner, however, relies upon the NOC dated 29.01.2024 issued
by the Education Department and the said document undoubtedly
demonstrates that an NOC was issued in favour of the petitioner for his
appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
However, the issuance of an NOC cannot, by itself, be equated with
joining the new post and the NOC merely removed, subject to its terms, an
impediment arising from the petitioner's existing employment. It did not
dispense with the specific requirement contained in the appointment order
that the petitioner should actually report for duty within the prescribed
period. More importantly, the petitioner has not placed on record any order
issued by the competent appointing authority whereby the period of 15 days
stipulated in the appointment order was extended. Mere assertion that an
extension of time was sought cannot, in the absence of an order granting
such extension, enlarge the period prescribed in the appointment order.
The petitioner has also relied upon the fact that the select list was valid
for a period of 12 months under the Madhya Pradesh State Service
Examination Rules, 2015. There is no dispute that the Rules prescribe the
validity period of the main selection list. However, the question before this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
6 WP-27914-2024
Court is whether such validity of the select list entitled the petitioner to

ignore the specific period of 15 days prescribed in the appointment order
after the selection process had culminated in an actual appointment/posting
order.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the answer has to be in the
negative.
The validity of a selection list and the period granted to a selected
candidate to join pursuant to an appointment order operate in different fields.
The former determines the period during which the selection list remains
operative for the purposes contemplated by the Rules. The latter determines
the time within which a candidate, after receiving an appointment order, is
required to accept and act upon the appointment.
Once the appointment order dated 24.01.2024 had been issued in
favour of the petitioner, prescribing a specific period of 15 days for joining,
the petitioner was required to comply with the said condition unless the
competent authority extended the same. The mere fact that the selection list
had not completed its overall period of validity could not, in the absence of
an extension of the joining period, automatically keep the appointment order
open indefinitely.
This conclusion also finds support from Rule 13(3) of the Madhya
Pradesh Police Executive (Gazetted) Services Recruitment and Promotion
Rules, 2000, which specifically provides that “if a candidate who is offered
an appointment on probation, does not join the training at the given date and
place, his appointment shall be cancelled. The order of appointment shall be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
7 WP-27914-2024
cancelled if the candidate does not join within the period specified in the

appointment order.”
The language of the latter part of Rule 13(3) is significant. It does not
merely confer a discretionary power upon the authority to consider
cancellation. It specifically contemplates cancellation of the appointment
where the candidate does not join within the period specified in the
appointment order.
In the present case, the period specified in the appointment order was
15 days. The petitioner admittedly did not join within that period. Therefore,
the respondents cannot be said to have acted de-hors the statutory framework
in treating the appointment as cancelled. The petitioner's principal grievance
is, however, that no show-cause notice was issued to him before passing the
impugned order dated 06.06.2024.
The principles of natural justice undoubtedly constitute an important
safeguard where an administrative action adversely affects a person's rights.
This Court is also conscious of the observations made by the Division Bench
in Sanjay Jain (supra), particularly paragraphs 22 and 23, relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said case, the Division Bench
emphasized that an order having civil consequences cannot ordinarily be
sustained merely by resorting to a deeming provision while completely
ignoring the principles of natural justice.
However, the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts of the
present case. In Sanjay Jain's case, the Court was dealing with the
discontinuance/termination of a person who had already entered into service
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
8 WP-27914-2024
and whose case involved a dispute concerning the circumstances in which he

was alleged to have ceased to be in service. The question before the Court
was, therefore, one concerning termination of an existing service
relationship.
The present case stands on a materially different footing. The
petitioner was a selected candidate who had been offered appointment
subject to specific conditions and had not joined the post within the
stipulated period. The impugned order did not terminate an existing tenure of
service after the petitioner had joined the post of DSP. Rather, it recorded the
consequence of his failure to join pursuant to the appointment order.
The distinction is material. The petitioner cannot claim the same status
as that of an incumbent Government servant whose existing service is sought
to be terminated by way of disciplinary or punitive action. The consequence
contemplated by Rule 13(3) is attached to failure to comply with the
condition of appointment itself.
Further, in the present case, there is no factual dispute of substance
regarding the basic event of non-joining within 15 days. The petitioner
doesn't assert that he had actually joined at Mandsaur within the stipulated
period. His defence is essentially that he had reasons for not joining and that
he was entitled to additional time because of the NOC and other personal
circumstances.
Such circumstances, even if accepted as bona fide, could not
automatically extend the statutory/contractual period for joining in the
absence of an order of extension by the competent authority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
9 WP-27914-2024
The petitioner has referred to the NOC dated 29.01.2024 and has also

pleaded certain difficulties relating to his existing service and family
circumstances. The Court does not doubt that the petitioner may have had
genuine personal and administrative difficulties. However, the issue before
the Court is not whether the petitioner had a plausible explanation; the issue
is whether such explanation created a legally enforceable right to continue
with the appointment after expiry of the period expressly prescribed in the
appointment order. No such right has been demonstrated.
The contention of the petitioner that the impugned order does not
specifically reproduce Rule 13(3) also does not persuade this Court, as the
appointment order itself contained the condition regarding joining within the
prescribed period and the consequence of failure to join. The statutory Rule
provides the legal framework governing such appointment. The validity of
the action cannot be defeated merely because the impugned order did not
reproduce each statutory provision which authorised the consequence.
In this regard, the petitioner's reliance upon the principle that an
administrative order cannot be subsequently improved by supplying new
reasons in a return also does not assist him. The essential reason recorded in
the impugned order is the petitioner's failure to join within the prescribed
period. The respondents are not seeking to substitute that factual basis with
an altogether different ground. Rule 13(3) merely supplies the statutory
context to the consequence already flowing from the appointment order.
The contention regarding discrimination also deserves rejection.
The petitioner has sought to compare his case with that of respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
10 WP-27914-2024
No.5, particularly by relying upon the subsequent order dated 12.03.2025

and the joining of respondent No.5 on 07.04.2025. The documents placed on
record by respondent No.5 indicate that, after the order dated 12.03.2025, he
pursued the process of obtaining NOC, submitted an application dated
03.04.2025, received NOC on 04.04.2025, was relieved on 05.04.2025 and
thereafter joined on 07.04.2025, 06.04.2025 being Sunday.
Thus, the factual circumstances relied upon by respondent No.5 are
materially different. In any event, Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim
parity on the basis of an alleged erroneous or irregular benefit extended to
another person. A person cannot ordinarily claim repetition of an alleged
illegality merely on the ground of equality. Moreover, respondent No.5's
appointment was not the subject matter of the original challenge in the writ
petition. The petitioner did not initially sought quashing of respondent No.5's
appointment. The attempt to question the same through the subsequent
rejoinder cannot, by itself, establish an enforceable right in favour of the
petitioner. The petitioner has also relied upon the interim order dated
25.09.2024, contending that any appointment was made subject to the final
outcome of the writ petition. Such an interim observation, however, does not
determine the merits of the petitioner's claim. An interim order protects the
subject matter of litigation during pendency of proceedings; it does not
confer a substantive right which the petitioner did not otherwise possess.
It is also relevant that the petitioner approached this Court after the
order dated 06.06.2024 had already been passed. The delay in approaching
the Court is not, by itself, decisive of the controversy, but it is a circumstance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
11 WP-27914-2024
which also militates against the contention that the petitioner was

continuously and immediately seeking to enforce his alleged right to join.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Saurabh Yadav
(supra). In that case, the Court found on the facts before it that the joining
period had to be reckoned from the date of communication/receipt of the
relevant notice and that the cancellation had occurred before expiry of the
period available to the candidate. The Court also found that the select list had
not expired on the date on which joining was denied. The said decision does
not lay down that mere subsistence of a select list confers an unrestricted
right upon a selected candidate to join at any point of time notwithstanding
the specific period prescribed in an appointment order. In the present case,
the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was passed
before expiry of the 15-day period prescribed in the appointment order.
Rather, the petitioner's own pleadings proceed on the basis that he did not
join within the stipulated period. The factual foundation of Saurabh Yadav's
case is, therefore, materially distinguishable and does not advance the
petitioner's case.
Mere selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment,
and an appointment offered subject to conditions must ordinarily be accepted
and acted upon in accordance with those conditions. Once the competent
authority has specified a definite period for joining and the applicable
statutory Rules expressly provide for cancellation in the event of non-joining
within that period, the Court cannot rewrite the conditions of appointment
merely because the select list continued to remain valid for a longer period.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
12 WP-27914-2024
The Court is not oblivious to the petitioner's submission that he had

obtained an NOC on 29.01.2024. The said circumstance certainly
demonstrates that the petitioner had taken a step towards joining the new
post. Nevertheless, the NOC was obtained within the prescribed period, and
there is no material showing that thereafter the petitioner actually reported
for duty within the remaining period or obtained a formal extension from the
competent authority. Likewise, the petitioner's personal difficulties, including
the circumstances pleaded concerning his father, may explain the delay but
cannot, in the absence of a corresponding order of extension, create a
statutory right to appointment beyond the period prescribed by the
appointment order.
The Court also finds no material demonstrating that the impugned
order dated 06.06.2024 was actuated by mala fide, discrimination or any
extraneous consideration, as the order was passed by the competent authority
in consequence of the petitioner's failure to comply with the joining
condition contained in the appointment order. The respondents have,
therefore, furnished a legally sustainable basis for the action taken against the
petitioner.
The submission that the petitioner should have been granted a
“breathing time” to secure NOC also cannot be accepted in the facts of the
case, but the record itself shows that the NOC was issued on 29.01.2024.
Therefore, the principal impediment relied upon by the petitioner stood
removed during the initial period available for joining. Thereafter, it was
incumbent upon him to report for duty or obtain a formal extension from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24321
13 WP-27914-2024
competent authority. In the absence of any such extension, the petitioner

cannot claim that the 15-day period stood automatically enlarged until the
expiry of the one-year validity of the selection list.
Consequently, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish
any enforceable legal right to seek joining on the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police after expiry of the period prescribed in the
appointment order. The impugned order dated 06.06.2024 does not suffer
from any jurisdictional error, violation of the applicable statutory Rules,
arbitrariness or such perversity as would warrant interference under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is
discretionary and is exercised to correct illegality, arbitrariness or violation
of legal rights. In the present case, no such ground warranting interference
has been established by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is found to
be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. As a consequence, the interim
order, if any, shall stand vacated.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
2:56:55 PM