The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ahmed Ali

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68954
1 WA-2602-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
th
ON THE 8 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2602 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DR. AHMED ALI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Sharma - Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State.
Shri Viraaj Shanker Jha - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
Heard on I.A. No.17111/2025, which is an application under Section
5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 404 days.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that after
passing of impugned order dated 26.04.2024 in Writ Petition
No.13732/2021, legal opinion was sought from the Office of the Advocate
General with respect to further action. Thereafter, legal opinion was
furnished to comply with the order of Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, matter was
processed to law department and after receiving opinion from the authority
concern, appeal was prepared and filed. Due to procedural inertia/formalities
consumed in the process, delay of 404 days has been caused. Since, case
bears merits and therefore, deserves to be argued on merits in the interest of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
15:36:21

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68954
2 WA-2602-2025
justice. Sufficiency of cause is made out.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/State referred the judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Motilal Songara v. Prem Praksh alias
Pappu and another, (2013) 9 SCC 199, Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through
Legal Representatives and others v. Union of India and others, (2023) 10
SCC 531, and Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1501. Therefore, as submitted to address
on merits, it is imperative that delay be condoned and the matter be heard on
its own merits.
4. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the prayer and prayed
for dismissal of the application.
5. In consideration of application for condonation of delay, sufficiency
of cause is the prime consideration. Considering the submissions and looking
to the nature of dispute and reasons assigned in the application, as submitted
by counsel for the appellants/State sufficiency of cause is made out.
Therefore, delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Matter deserves to
be heard on merits, in the interest of justice.
6. I.A. No. 17111/2026 stands allowed subject to depositing cost of
Rs.5000/- to the respondents within 30 days. Accordingly, delay of 400 days
in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
7. Heard on admission and interim relief.
8. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that
although the learned writ Court issued certain directions for consideration of
the case of the respondents in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
15:36:21

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68954
3 WA-2602-2025
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others,

reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the State Cabinet, by Cabinet Note dated March,
2015 (vide Annexure A/2), had considered the case of the respondents and
vide order dated 21.05.2015 State passed an order in which respondents were
treated as contractual employees and on "As is Where is" basis, they were
placed in contractual appointment.
9. Without disclosing this fact, the petition was filed by the
respondents and an order for consideration of their case in light of Uma Devi
(supra) was passed, which needs to be amended because the appellants have
already decided the case as per law.
10. It is further submitted that all these employees were given
appointment on contractual basis to look to the project ofconservation of
archaeological sites of the area coming under submergence in Narmada
Valley Project. Therefore, they could not have been given permanent status
because it was a project-based assignment funded by the Central and State
Government.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention and
submitted that the order does not bear any direction to decide in a particular
manner. It only says that the matter is to be decided in light of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Besides that,
there is no bar to the consideration of the case of the respondents so far as
regularization is concerned. Therefore, writ appeal be dismissed.
12. Heard.
13. After considering the rival submissions and going through the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
15:36:21

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68954
4 WA-2602-2025
impugned order, it appears that at the time of passing of this order, the

Hon'ble writ Court did not have the Cabinet Note which spells out the reason
for placing these persons on a contractual basis for a particular project, and
said project was over and therefore their contractual appointment was
temporary in nature and it was mission-based. They were required to protect
the archaeological sites which were falling under the submergence of the
Narmada Valley Project.
14. In pursuance of the Cabinet decision taken, appellant/State vide
order dated 21.05.2015 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh
(Cultural Department), the position and held that they were placed on a
contractual basis on "As is Where is" basis. The names of the respondents
were placed in the said order.
15. In the present case, regarding service conditions of respondents,
State took a conscious decision. In cabinet, matter was discussed. Thereafter
vide order dated 21.05.2015 a detailed order was passed. Looking to the
temporal nature of project which was in respect of preservation of sites
which were coming under submergence and contractual nature of assignment
given to the respondents, it appears that these facts were not brought on
record and therefore, learned writ Court passed the order for consideration.
Once consideration is already made earlier in 2015, then such direction
would be an empty formality. It may create complication also. Even
otherwise, Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) has criticized such
type of appointments. Illegal appointments cannot be countenanced, only
irregular ones, that too with procedure as prescribed into it. Once
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
15:36:21

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68954
5 WA-2602-2025
appellant/State took a conscious decision, then the order of consideration has

no meaning.
16. Resultantly, order dated 26.04.2024 passed in WP No.13732/2021
is set aside and writ appeal stands allowed.
(ANAND PATHAK)
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
DevS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-09-2026
15:36:21