Narayan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26064
1 WP-33143-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 33143 of 2024
NARAYAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Ashwini Johri -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 to
3/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking following relief(s):
"(i) That, the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P/1)
may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That, the appointment of private respondent No.4 on the post
of Gram Rojgar Sahayak Gram Panchayat Bardhakhurd be
directed to be quashed.
(iii) That, the appointment to the petitioner be directed to be made
with all consequential benefits including cost of this litigation and
seniority.
(iv) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide impugned
order dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-1), respondent No. 2 Collector, Sheopur
dismissed the appeal No.17/Appeal/2020-21 on the ground of limitation as
the appeal has been filed after more than four months and the limitation in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:28:16 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26064
2 WP-33143-2024
filing the appeal is 30 days. It is submitted that petitioner is more meritorious

as he has secured 58.67 marks but instead of petitioner, respondent No. 4 -
Girraj Sharma, who secured 53 marks, has been selected and appointed on
the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. There was a delay of only three months in
filing the appeal before the Collector, Sheopur and submitted that the
Collector must be proceeded with the appeal on merits ignoring such delay.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the
impugned order and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5 . The undisputed position emerging from the record is that the
petitioner received the relevant documents under the RTI Act on 11.05.2018
and thereafter filed the statutory appeal in September 2018. Thus, the appeal
was undoubtedly beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. However, the
mere fact that an appeal is filed beyond limitation does not, by itself,
conclude the matter. Where the statute permits consideration of an
application for condonation of delay, the authority is required to examine
whether the explanation furnished by the appellant constitutes sufficient
cause.
6. The object of limitation provisions is not to destroy a substantive
right but to ensure that stale claims are not entertained without sufficient
justification. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, has emphasized that while
considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:28:16 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26064
3 WP-33143-2024
oriented approach should ordinarily be adopted, particularly where refusal to

condone delay would result in a potentially meritorious matter being rejected
without examination on merits. At the same time, this does not mean that
delay has to be condoned mechanically. The petitioner must establish
sufficient cause for the period of delay.
7 . In the present case, the Collector has taken note of the date
11.05.2018, on which the petitioner received documents under the RTI Act.
However, the material question is not merely the date on which the
documents were received. The Collector was required to examine the nature
of the documents supplied, whether the impugned order itself was supplied
to the petitioner on that date, what knowledge the petitioner acquired from
those documents and, most importantly, the explanation furnished by the
petitioner for the period between 11.05.2018 and the filing of the appeal.
8. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that in such circumstances,
particularly when the dispute concerns the legality of an appointment and the
petitioner claims to have been placed higher in the merit list, it would be
appropriate to give an opportunity to the statutory appellate authority to
examine the dispute on merits. The petitioner has pleaded that he had secured
58.67 marks and was placed at Serial No.1 in the provisional merit list,
whereas respondent No.4 had secured 53 marks. Whether the petitioner was
actually entitled to appointment, whether the preference available to a
candidate belonging to the concerned Gram Panchayat operated in the
manner contended by the respondents, and whether the appointment of
respondent No.4 was otherwise in accordance with the applicable policy, are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:28:16 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26064
4 WP-33143-2024
matters which ought to be examined by the competent appellate authority.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed in
part. The order dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-
Collector, District Sheopur in Appeal No.17/2020-21, insofar as it rejects the
petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, is hereby set aside. The delay in
filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The Collector, District Sheopur shall
thereafter hear the petitioner, private respondent No.4 and all other necessary
parties and shall decide the appeal strictly on its own merits, in accordance
with law and the applicable recruitment policy and the Collector shall pass a
reasoned and speaking order after considering the rival contentions and the
documents available on record. The appeal shall preferably be decided within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order, subject to cooperation of the parties.
10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the petitioner's claim or on the legality of the appointment of
respondent No.4.
11 . With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands partly
allowed.
12. No order as to costs.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Abhi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:28:16 AM