Arbitrary state-caused delays entitle successful candidates to retrospective seniority from the original selection date.

The petitioner served as a Coordinator under the Non-Formal Education Scheme from 1991 to 1993

The State Government later formulated a policy to appoint such Coordinators as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III subject to clearing an eligibility test under the M.P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005

The petitioner cleared this test on December 19, 2008

However, the State denied him appointment based on a circular dated October 5, 2009, which restricted eligibility to those working as of December 31, 2000

This circular was subsequently quashed by the High Court in Anil Bhatt v. State of M.P. (2012)

Despite several court orders in the petitioner’s favor, the State continued litigating through Writ Appeals and Special Leave Petitions, all of which were dismissed by 2017

Consequently, the petitioner was only appointed on March 7, 2019

He approached the Court seeking retrospective seniority and notional fixation from the date of his initial eligibility in 2008

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority and notional appointment from the date of the initial selection process (2008) rather than the actual date of appointment (2019) given the State's delay in implementation

2. Whether the principles of restitutive relief established by the Supreme Court apply to candidates delayed by arbitrary State litigation

The Court primarily applied the principle of non-retrospectivity of service rules as established in Anil Bhatt v. State of M.P., holding that amendments cannot disqualify candidates after a selection process is complete

It further relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Smita Shrivastava v. State of M.P. & others (2024), which held that where "adamant, arbitrary, and high-handed" State actions drive a successful candidate into prolonged litigation, the candidate is entitled to restitutive relief, including continuity of service and backdated appointment to the date the first appointment order was issued for that selection process

The Court observed that the petitioner was situated identically to the appellant in Smita Shrivastava, having cleared the same 2008 eligibility test

It noted that although the petitioner succeeded in his initial writ petition in 2012, the State persistently litigated the matter until 2017, effectively depriving the petitioner of his lawful appointment for over a decade

The Court reasoned that the delay in implementing the policy was solely attributable to the State’s arbitrary decision-making and unsuccessful appeals

Applying the Smita Shrivastava precedent, the Court concluded that the petitioner must be placed in the same position he would have occupied had the State acted lawfully in 2008, thereby granting him seniority from the date the first appointments were made for that batch

The petitioner is granted retrospective seniority and continuity of service; however, the Court held he is not entitled to back wages or monetary benefits for the period he did not actually work

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly