Deepak Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37512
1 WA-2787-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 11 OF MAY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2787 of 2025
DEEPAK CHOUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Warija Ghildiyal -
Advocate for appellants.
Shri Ritwik Parashar, Government Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
This appeal is filed against the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 34537 of 2025 whereby the writ petition
filed by the writ petitioners/appellants has been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is that the writ
petitioners/appellants applied pursuant to a recruitment advertisement for the
post of Primary Teacher in both the School Education Department and the
Tribal Development Department. Despite securing marks higher than the last
selected candidate in the School Education Department, they were initially
appointed in the Tribal Development Department.
3. Aggrieved by their non-selection in the School Education
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
11:30:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37512
2 WA-2787-2025
Department, the writ petitioners/appellants filed writ petitions before this

Court. The writ petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to
consider their cases for appointment in the School Education Department.
Subsequently, a revised merit list was prepared and the appellants/writ
petitioners were allotted posts in the School Education Department.
4. However, the writ petitioners were not permitted to join their new
posts on the ground that they were required to obtain a No Objection
Certificate (NOC) from the Tribal Development Department. The Tribal
Development Department, in turn, informed the writ petitioners that the NOC
would be issued only upon submission of their resignations from the post of
Primary Teacher. The writ court dismissed the writ petition, hence, this
appeal on the following grounds.
5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that
the appellants/writ petitioners were wrongly compelled to resign from the
Tribal Development Department before joining the School Education
Department, instead of being granted a No Objection Certificate (NOC).
Owing to such compelled resignations, they are now being treated as fresh
appointees and are being paid only 70% of the salary applicable during the
initial probation period, resulting in loss of seniority and other past service
benefits.
6. That the appellants/writ petitioners were initially denied
appointment in the School Education Department despite being more
meritorious than the last selected candidates, forcing them to approach this
court for enforcement of their rightful claim. Even after their entitlement was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
11:30:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37512
3 WA-2787-2025
recognized, the respondents failed to extend the benefit of past service.

7. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the settled principles of law and the binding precedents laid down
by the Division Bench and the Hon’ble Apex Court. The dismissal of the
writ petition has, therefore, not only perpetuated the injustice caused to the
appellants/writ petitioners but has also further aggravated their grievance.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned
order and submits that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is
contended that the appellants/writ petitioners themselves had earlier
approached this Court, and the Division Bench, in light of the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Praveen Kumar Kurmi v. State of M.P. & Others,
allowed the said petitions. That pursuant to the order passed by the Division
Bench in W.P. No. 28139/2023 (Aman Dubey & Others v. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Others) and other connected matters, the District Education
Officer, Sagar issued an order dated 12.06.2025.
9. The learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the
parties, held that the appellants/writ petitioners had acted upon the order
dated 12.06.2025 and submitted their resignations in accordance with the
conditions stipulated therein. It was further observed that the appellants/writ
petitioners had neither challenged the said order at any stage nor sought any
clarification or modification with regard to the benefit of past service.
Having accepted the order and derived benefits thereunder, the
appellants/writ petitioners are estopped from raising any contrary claim at
this stage. In the absence of any challenge to Condition No. 5(viii) of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
11:30:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37512
4 WA-2787-2025
said order, the learned Single judge dismissed the writ petition as not

maintainable.
10. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has relied upon the
order of the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 34360/2024
(Roopendra Chadar & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) dated
30.04.2026 in support of the appeal.
11. It is submitted that once the Division Bench has already
recognized the appellants’ entitlement to appointment in the School
Education Department on the basis of merit, their transfer from the Tribal
Welfare Department to the School Education Department cannot be treated
as a fresh appointment. Rather, it is a case of migration in continuation of
service. Therefore, the service rendered by the appellants in the Tribal
Welfare Department cannot be regarded as broken or forfeited merely on
account of resignation, particularly when such resignation was only a
procedural requirement for effecting the migration.
12. It is further submitted that the principle of continuity of service
stands well established in law, namely, that where an employee is transferred
or migrated from one department to another pursuant to judicial direction or
administrative scheme, such continuity must be preserved unless there is an
express statutory bar. In absence thereof, the past service is necessarily
required to be counted for all consequential benefits, including qualifying
service and seniority.
13. It is also contended that pay and emoluments constitute a
protected form of property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
11:30:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37512
5 WA-2787-2025
and cannot be reduced arbitrarily or without authority of law. The appellants,

having already entered the third year of probation and drawing 90% of the
admissible pay scale, could not have been treated as fresh appointees in the
School Education Department so as to reduce their pay to 70%, particularly
when their appointment is not fresh recruitment but a continuation based on
merit and judicial intervention. In sum and substance, the appellants submit
that migration on the basis of merit cannot result in forfeiture of past service
or reduction in pay, and therefore, continuity of service along with all
consequential benefits, including seniority and pay protection, deserves to be
granted in their favour, warranting interference by this court and allowing of
the appeal.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
perused the record.
15. The core issue arising for consideration in the present appeal is
whether the appellants/writ petitioners, who were initially appointed in the
Tribal Development Department despite being more meritorious and
thereafter granted appointment in the School Education Department pursuant
to judicial intervention, can be treated as fresh appointees disentitling them
from continuity of service, pay protection, seniority and other consequential
benefits.
16. It is not in dispute that the appellants had secured marks higher
than the last selected candidates in the School Education Department. It is
also undisputed that they were denied appointment in the said department
and were compelled to approach this court seeking enforcement of their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
11:30:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37512
6 WA-2787-2025
rightful claim. The Division Bench, while considering their earlier writ

petitions in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Praveen Kumar Kurmi v. State of M.P. & Others, directed the respondents
to consider their cases for appointment in the School Education Department.
Pursuant thereto, a revised merit list was prepared and the appellants were
allotted posts in the School Education Department strictly on the basis of
their merit position.
17. Thus, the appointment granted to the appellants in the School
Education Department was not a fresh recruitment or a new selection
process, but merely a rectification of the earlier illegality committed by the
respondents in denying them their rightful appointment despite their superior
merit. The movement of the appellants from the Tribal Development
Department to the School Education Department was, therefore, only a
migration in continuation of service and not a case of fresh appointment.
18. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Roopendra Chadar &
Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others passed in W.P. No. 34360/2024
decided on 30.04.2026, while dealing with an identical controversy, held that
where candidates are shifted from one department to another pursuant to
judicial directions on the basis of merit, such migration cannot result in
forfeiture of past service benefits. It was further held that resignation
tendered in such circumstances is merely procedural in nature and cannot be
construed as severing the employer-employee relationship so as to deprive
the employees of continuity of service, seniority and pay protection.
19. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view taken by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
11:30:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37512
7 WA-2787-2025
the Coordinate Bench. The appellants cannot be made to suffer for an error

committed by the respondents themselves in not granting them appointment
in the School Education Department at the initial stage despite their higher
merit. Once this court recognized and enforced their rightful entitlement, the
consequential benefits flowing therefrom ought to have been extended in full
measure.
20. The contention of the State that the appellants are estopped from
raising the present claim since they accepted the order dated 12.06.2025 and
submitted resignations pursuant thereto also does not merit acceptance. The
so-called resignation was not voluntary abandonment of service for joining
another establishment through a fresh process of recruitment. Rather, it was a
procedural formality imposed by the respondents themselves to facilitate
joining in the School Education Department. Such technical resignation
cannot operate to deprive the appellants of substantive service benefits
accrued to them.
21. The learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, failed to
appreciate the true nature of the transaction and erroneously treated the case
of the appellants as one of fresh appointment. Merely because the appellants
did not specifically challenge Condition No. 5(viii) of the order dated
12.06.2025 would not disentitle them from claiming continuity of service
when the action of the respondents is otherwise arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
22. We also find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of
the appellants that reduction of their salary from 90% to 70% by treating
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
11:30:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37512
8 WA-2787-2025
them as fresh appointees is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The

appellants had already rendered service in the Tribal Development
Department and had progressed in their probation period. Once their
appointment in the School Education Department is held to be in
continuation of service, there could not have been any occasion to reset their
probation or reduce their emoluments.
23. In the absence of any statutory provision specifically providing
for forfeiture of past service in such circumstances, the respondents were
duty bound to preserve continuity of service of the appellants along with all
consequential benefits including seniority, pay protection and counting of
past service for all service-related purposes.
24. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
The order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.
34537 of 2025 is hereby set aside.
25. The respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the
appellants in the School Education Department as a continuation of their
earlier service rendered in the Tribal Development Department and not as
fresh appointment. The appellants shall be entitled to continuity of service
with all consequential benefits including protection of pay, seniority,
continuity of probation period and counting of past service for all service
purposes.
26. The respondents are further directed to restore the pay of the
appellants at the stage which they were drawing prior to their migration to
the School Education Department and to release all consequential monetary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
11:30:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37512
9 WA-2787-2025
benefits arising therefrom within a period of ninety days from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.
27. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed. No order as to
costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
11:30:48