Imran Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83227
1 WP-8722-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
th
ON THE 14 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8722 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010168082025
IMRAN KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Hitendra Kumar Golhani - Advocate appears through video conferencing with
Ms. Arti Namdeo - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Kunal Gupta - Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
By way of the present petition, the petitioner has invoked the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2025
(Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.1, whereby the representation
preferred by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the validity of the
waiting list had expired.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities issued an
advertisement for various posts, including Section Officer (Administration),
in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300–34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- on a
contractual basis through direct recruitment. In the merit list, the petitioner
secured the second position. Although, both the petitioner and respondent
No.2 had equal marks in educational qualifications, the petitioner secured
higher marks in the practical test and interview, whereas respondent No.2
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
14:48:05

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83227
2 WP-8722-2025
was selected on account of higher marks awarded for experience. Upon

obtaining the application of respondent No.2 and supporting documents
under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner discovered that respondent
No.2 had claimed experience as an HR Executive with Chaakshi Futuristic
Technology Private Limited from 05.10.2004 to 03.09.2006, whereas the
company was incorporated only on 22.12.2005. The petitioner alleged that
the experience claimed for the preceding period was fraudulent and
submitted objections dated 25.11.2019 and 21.07.2020 challenging the
selection, but no decision was taken. Subsequently, upon obtaining relevant
information through the State Information Commission, the petitioner
discovered further alleged irregularities and submitted a representation dated
18.08.2021, which also remained undecided. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
W.P. No.23060/2021, which was withdrawn on 26.10.2021 with liberty to
file a properly constituted petition. In W.P. No.25482/2021 this Court vide
order dated 14.12.2024 directed the petitioner to submit a representation to
the respondent Corporation for a decision within 60 days. Accordingly, the
petitioner submitted a representation on 26.12.2024 and a hearing was
conducted on 13.02.2025. However, the Managing Director rejected the
representation by order dated 24.02.2025 on the ground that the waiting list
had expired.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection of
respondent No.2 was based on a false claim of work experience and,
therefore, deserves to be set aside with a consequential direction to consider
the petitioner being next in merit for appointment. It is further submitted that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
14:48:05

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83227
3 WP-8722-2025
the petitioner’s objections and representations have not been considered on

merits and that the impugned order fails to deal with his grievances by
assigning cogent reasons, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Despite the specific direction issued by this Court in W.P. No.25482/2021 to
decide the petitioner’s representation by a reasoned and speaking order, the
respondent authority rejected the same merely on the ground of expiry of the
waiting list. Learned counsel contends that such rejection is arbitrary and
discriminatory and violates the petitioner’s rights to equality and fair
consideration under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the submissions
advanced by the petitioner and submits that the averments made in the writ
petition are misconceived, baseless and devoid of merit. It is contended that
respondent No.1, being a public sector corporation under the Department of
Health and Medical Education, issued the advertisement to fill the vacant
post of Section Officer (Administration) on a contractual basis. Upon due
scrutiny and completion of the recruitment process, respondent No.2 was
selected and appointed. It is further submitted that, upon appointment of the
selected candidate, the selection process stood concluded and the select list,
in any event, remained valid only for one year and expired in 2020.
Moreover, the contractual services of respondent No.2 were subsequently
discontinued, a fact brought to the notice of this Court in W.P.
No.25482/2021. Pursuant to the directions issued therein, the petitioner’s
representation was duly considered and rejected by the impugned order, as
no merit was found therein and the select list had already expired. Learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
14:48:05

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83227
4 WP-8722-2025
counsel further submits that the petitioner has not challenged either the select

list or the appointment of respondent No.2 and has merely sought a direction
for his own appointment. Since the recruitment process stood concluded and
the select list had ceased to operate, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity
warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. On perusal of the record, it seems that the petitioner has primarily
questioned the selection of respondent No.2 on the ground that the
experience certificate furnished by respondent No.2 was allegedly based on
incorrect facts. However, the petitioner has neither challenged the select list
nor sought any specific relief for setting aside the appointment of respondent
No.2. The relief sought by the petitioner for consideration of his candidature
for appointment cannot be granted merely on the ground that he secured the
next position in the merit list, particularly when the select list had ceased to
remain operative upon expiry of its prescribed validity period. It is an
admitted position that the select list was valid for a period of one year and
had expired in the year 2020. The appointment of the selected candidate had
already been made and the recruitment process stood concluded. The
subsequent discontinuation of the contractual services of respondent No.2
does not, by itself, confer any indefeasible right upon the petitioner to claim
appointment against the said post. It is well settled that inclusion in a select
list or waiting list does not, by itself, confer an enforceable right to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
14:48:05

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83227
5 WP-8722-2025
appointment. In the absence of any subsisting select list or a legal obligation

on the part of the respondent authorities to offer appointment to the
petitioner, no mandamus can be issued directing his appointment.
7. So far as the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 is concerned, the
same has been passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.
No.25482/2021. The respondent authority considered the petitioner’s
representation and rejected the same inter alia on the ground that the select
list had already expired. Merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the
decision taken by the competent authority, the same cannot be held to be
arbitrary or illegal in the absence of any material demonstrating a violation
of statutory provisions or any enforceable legal right of the petitioner. The
allegations regarding the experience claimed by respondent No.2 without a
proper challenge to the selection and appointment in question and without
sufficient material warranting judicial interference, do not furnish a ground
for granting the relief sought in the present petition.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P/1).
9. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
THK

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
14:48:05