Smt Richa Pachori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31890
1 WP-6031-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6031 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030043692026
SMT RICHA PACHORI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the respondents authority be directed to given the
appointment on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak after completion of
three years tenure as contract teacher verg-3 from the date of
declaration of result dated 22.10.11 as per circular dated 18.05.12 &
further benefit of Prathmik Shikshak since 2018 be given and paid
arrears from the date of appointment on the post of Samvida Shikshak
Grade-III dated 08.12.25 treating said appointment as Sahayak
Adhyapak / Prathmik Shikshak and refix the fixation notionally from
22.10.11 till 08.12.25 and grant seniority for the purpose of other
benefits.
(ii) That, the respondents be directed to extent consequential benefit
including Kramonnati & Higher Pay Scale to the petitioner treating her
seniority since 20.10.11 and paid arrears with interest from due date.
(iii) That, the respondent be directed to paid the cost of Rs. 10 Lack to
Petitioner as granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Smita
Shrivastava.

(iv) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31890
2 WP-6031-2026
already completed BTI course. It is further submitted that the controversy,

involved in the instant petition, has already been decided by a coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 passed in WP.
No.23307/2024 [Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others] . The
order dated 15.04.2026 is reproduced as under:-
"1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for following
reliefs:-
(i) That, the respondents authority be further directed to
given the appointment on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak
after completion of three years tenure as contract teacher
verg-3 from the date of declaration of result dated 17.09.08
as per circular dated 05.10.09 & paid arrears from the date of
appointment on the post of Samvida Shikshak Grade-III
dated 07.03.19 treating said appointment as Sahayak
Adhayapaka and refix the fixation notionally from 17.09.08
till 07.03.19 and grant seniority for the purpose of other
benefits.
(ii) That, the respondents be directed to extent consequential
benefit including Kramonnati & Higher Pay Scale to the
petitioner treating his seniority since 17.09.08 and paid
arrears with interest.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be
awarded."

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that in order to
achieve its object of imparting primary education to the children
of the age group of 6 to 14 years, the State Government
formulated a policy for appointing the Coordinators and
Supervisors under the Non-Formal Education Scheme. As per this
scheme, the Non-Formal Education centers were established
where facility of primary education is not available. It is the case
of the petitioner that he was duly selected for appointment on the
post of the Coordinator and was posted at Non-Formal Education
center, Karmai, District- Shivpuri (M.P.). Subsequently Non-
Formal Education centers were closed on account of establishment
of primary schools. Accordingly, the persons working on the post
were also stopped. As per the certificate filed at page 22 of the
petition, it is gathered that the petitioner worked as Coordinator
from 01/12/1991 to 08/7/1993.

3. In order to provide employment to the persons who had worked
as Coordinators/Supervisors, the State Government took a
decision to conduct an eligibility test and whosoever qualifies the
test, they were to be considered for appointment on the post of
Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III as per provisions of The M.P.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31890
3 WP-6031-2026
Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions
of Contract) Rules, 2005. The eligibility test was accordingly
conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board, Bhopal,
wherein the petitioner successfully participated and the certificate-
cum-mark sheet was issued in his favour on 19/12/2008
(Annexure- P/4).

4. Despite having successfully cleared the eligibility test, the
candidature of the petitioner and several others were not accepted
by the respondents on the ground that they were not working as on
31/03/2000 as Coordinators. This was done in view of the circular
dated 05/10/2009 (Annexure-P/5) which restricted the
consideration of persons who have worked continuously upto
31/12/2000. This circular came to be challenged by way of
various writ petitions before this Court. The petitioner also filed
W.P. No.1472/2011.

5. The similar writ petition was filed before the Principal Bench of
this Court in the case of Anil Bhatt vs. State of M.P. reported
in 2012(2) MP LJ 82. The circular dated 05/10/2009 (marked as
Annexure P/6 in the said petition) came to be challenged. The
Bench held as under:-


"11. The amendment made in the Rules which was published
in the gazette, dated 4-1-2010. It is well settled in law
that prima facie every amendment is prospective unless there
is clear indication in statute or rule that it would apply with
retrospective effect. It is not discernible from the amendment
that it is retrospective in nature. Therefore, the amended rule
would not apply retrospectively to the proceedings for
selection which were already completed. For this additional
reason also, the action of the respondents in excluding the
names of the petitioners from consideration cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.

12. In the result, the Circular (Annexure-P/6) is quashed. The
respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioners for appointment on the post or contract teacher
grade-3 in view of the unamended criteria and in the light of
Annexure-P/5, and if the petitioners are found otherwise
eligible for appointment; to issue order of appointment.

In the result, the writ appeal is allowed."

6 . The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the similar case of
Manmohan Mathur & others Vs. State of M.P. & others in W.P.
No.1102/2010 followed Anil Bhatt (supra) and allowed the writ
petition.

7. Thus, this Court in aforesaid cases, held held that the change in
Rule position would be applicable prospectively and would not be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31890
4 WP-6031-2026
applicable over the exam already conducted on 31/08/2008. The
circular dated 05/10/2009 was set aside by this Court in Anil Bhatt
(supra). The respondents were directed to consider the case of the
petitioners therein for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala
Shikshak Grade-III in view of the unamended criteria and if the
petitioners are found eligible, the order of appointment be issued.
The petitioner's case was also disposed of in view of the order
passed in the case of Manmohan Mathur (supra) vide order dated
30/07/2012.

8. The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the order passed in
petitioner's writ petition by filing Writ Appeal No.140/2013 which
was dismissed by the Division Bench on 15/04/2013. Thereafter,
the review petition was filed which was subject matter of R.P.
No.376/2013 which also came to be dismissed by order on
19/09/2014.

9. The Govt. also challenged the order passed by writ court in the
case of Manmohan by filing W.A. No.185/2013 which was
dismissed by Division Bench. Thereafter, R.P. No.375/2023 was
also dismissed. The Govt. challenged the order before Apex Court
by filing SLP(C) No.16115-16116/2015 which also came to be
dismissed on 07.09.2015 on the ground of delay. The Govt. filed
another review petition, being R.P. No.99/2017 which also
suffered dismissal by the order of Division Bench passed on
19/04/2017. Thus, the litigation ultimately concluded on
19/04/2017.

10. After the order passed in the case of Manmohan Mathur and
also in the case of petitioner attained finality, the contempt
petitions were filed before this Court alleging non-compliance of
orders passed in writ petitions. Pursuant to the coercive order
passed by this Court in the contempt petitions, respondents
complied with the order passed in the writ petition. The petitioner
was appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III by order
dated 07/03/2019 and was posted at Government Primary School
Toriya under Janpad Panchayat Kolaras, District- Shivpuri.
Subsequently, vide order dated 02/05/2022, the petitioner was
appointed in Adhyapak cadre as per the Madhya Pradesh School
Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions &
Recruitment Rules, 2018. As per this order, the date of his
eligibility in Adhyapak cadre is stated to be 07/03/2022 i.e. the
date when he completed three years as Samvida Shala Shikshak,
Grade-III. Further, vide order 05/05/223, the petitioner has been
appointed as Assistant Teacher. This appointment has been
recognized with effect from 07/03/2022.

11. The petitioner claims that sine he had cleared the eligible test
(held on 31/08/2008) on 19/12/2008, he is entitled to the
appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III
from the date of acquiring the eligibility test. In support of his

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31890
5 WP-6031-2026
submission, he refers to Clause 4 of circular dated 05/10/2009. It
is his further submission that because of the arbitrary decision
taken by the Government, his matter remained pending in
litigation before the Court and ultimately, finalized in the year
2013. Whereas in the case of Manmohan Mathur, the litigation
remained pending till 2017. As per his submission, the
respondents implemented their own scheme and passed the
consequential order only on 07/03/2019. He, thus, submitted that
the petitioner is entitled to get the seniority on the post of Samvida
Shala Shikshak Grade-III from the date of acquiring eligibility i.e.
19/12/2008 and is further entitled for absorption in Adhyapak
cadre after completion of three years from the said date and the
consequent appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. In
support of his submissions, learned counsel also placed reliance
upon the Apex Court order passed in the case of Smita Shrivastava
vs. State of M.P. & others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 764.

12. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State vehemently opposed the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per his submission, mere
acquiring eligibility would not be a ground for appointment on the
post and the seniority can be given to the petitioner only when he
is appointed on a particular post. It is his submission that in the
order dated 30/07/2012 passed by this Court in petitioner's writ
petition, no direction was issued to give him appointment and
benefit of seniority from date of passing eligibility examination.
He also submitted that order of appointment of the petitioner was
issued by the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kolaras,
District- Shivpuri (M.P.) and the Panchayat Rural and
Development Department has issued an order on 21/02/2013
thereby directing that the benefit of seniority will be granted from
the date of appointment in Adhyapak Samvarg. He, thus,
submitted that the claim of the petitioner for seniority from the
date of passing eligibility test is unfounded and unacceptable. The
petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

13. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

14. The learned counsel for petitioner placed heavy reliance upon
Clause 4 of order, dated 05/10/2009, which was passed by
Government of Madhya Pradesh through School Education
Department (Annexure-P/5). He based petitioner's claim for
seniority from the of his passing eligibility test. However, the
circular dated 05/10/2009, cannot be pressed into service simply
for the reason that the same has already been quashed by this
Court in the case of Anil Bhatt (supra). The submission of the
learned petitioner's counsel is, therefore, not acceptable.

15. However, the matter does not end hear. The similar benefit of
appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III,
arising out of same eligibility test, was denied to one Smita

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31890
6 WP-6031-2026
Shrivastava on the basis of notification dated 31/03/2018 whereby
the Govt. made amended provisions of Rule 7-A of Rules of 2005,
applicable with effect from 01/01/2008. The Division Bench of
this Court, though did not approve such an action of Govt.,
however, since the notification was not challenged, only
compensation was awarded to Ms. Smita. The matter travelled to
Apex Court. The Apex Court passed following order in the case
of Smita Shrivastava (supra):


"8. It is a glaring case wherein the adamant, arbitrary, mala
fide and high-handed approach of the State Government and
its officials has driven the appellant to a series of prolonged
litigations which were evidently not out of her choice. In
spite of having passed the selection exam held for the post of
st
Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III way back on 31 August,
2008, the appellant did not reap the fruits of her success. The
State Government took the shield of an amended rule i.e.
th
Rule 7-A, issued on 29 July, 2009 for denying relief to the
appellant herein, even when the said rule had no
retrospective application. Not only this, in spite of the High
Court having struck down the said rule and passing repeated
orders in favour of the appellant, another notification dated
st
21 March, 2018 was issued making the amended rule
st
effective from 1 January, 2008 i.e. prior to the date of
recruitment. This was clearly a mala fide action in an attempt
to circumvent the orders passed by the High Court by hook
or by crook so as to prevent the appellant and her peers of
their lawful claim to appointment which stood crystalized
long back. However, despite recognising all the unjustified
orders faced by the appellant, the Division Bench of High
Court of Madhya Pradesh failed to provide restitutive relief
to the appellant even after holding that she was illegally
deprived of her lawful entitlement.
*
10. The situation at hand is clearly covered by the aforesaid
observations made by this Court in the case of Manoj
Kumar (supra). There is no dispute that the appellant is
presently of 59 years of age and can hold the post of
Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III till the age of 62 years.
The High Court took note of the fact that despite a clear-cut
finding that the amended rule would not apply in the case of
the appellant, the State Government has rejected her
legitimate claim by relying on the amended rule. The High
Court, on the one hand, thought it fit to proceed with
contempt action against the erring officers of the State
Government, but at the same time, denied relief to the
st
appellant on the basis of notification dated 21 March, 2018
which makes the amended rule i.e. Rule 7-A effective
st
retrospectively i.e., with effect from 1 January, 2008. This
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31890
7 WP-6031-2026
observation of the High Court is in sheer contravention of the
findings and conclusions recorded earlier.

11. As a consequence, we are of the firm view that the
appellant deserves a direction for restitutive relief along with
compensation for the misery piled upon her owing to the
arbitrary and high-handed action of the State Government
and its officials. Accordingly, the following directions are
issued:—

(i) The appellant shall forthwith be appointed to the post
of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III or an equivalent
post within a period of 60 (sixty) days from today.
(ii) The appointment order will be effective from the
date on which the first appointment order pursuant to
st
the selection process dated 31 August, 2008 came to
be issued.
(iii) The appellant shall be entitled to continuity in
service. However, she shall not be entitled to back
wages. However, she is granted exemplary cost
quantified at Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only).
The above amount shall be paid to the appellant by the
State of Madhya Pradesh within 60 days.
(iv) The State Government shall hold an enquiry and
recover the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten
Lakhs only) from the officer(s) who were responsible of
taking deliberate, illegal, mala fide actions for denying
relief to the appellant."

16. In the case in hand also, the petitioner came before this Court
well in time by filing W.P. No.1472/2011. The petition was
though allowed in the year 2012 itself, the Government continued
to litigate the issue, in other case, before the Division Bench in
writ appeal and then review petition and thereafter, before the
Apex Court by filing SLP. Even though the SLP was dismissed by
the Apex Court on 07/09/2015, the Government again filed R.P.
No.99/2017. Thus, the delay in implementation of its own policy
cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner
is found to be similar situated with Ms. Smita Shrivastava and is
held entitled to similar relief as given to her in para 11(ii) quoted
above.

17. The petition is accordingly partly allowed and disposed with
direction to the respondent-authorities to grant appointment to the
petitioner on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade III with
effect from the date, the first appointment order pursuant to the
st
selection process dated 31 August, 2008 came to be issued.
Further, admittedly, the petitioner has not worked from
09/07/1993 till 06/03/2019, therefore, he would not be entitled for
any monetary benefit on account of giving him retrospective
seniority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31890
8 WP-6031-2026
18. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of."

3. Considering the aforesaid, it is directed that the aforesaid order passed in
the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis in the
present case also. However, respondents authorities are further directed to grant
the aforesaid benefit to the petitioner within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
4. With aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Abhi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM