State must process merit lists for appointment where contractual extensions of incumbents are refused under specific judicial directions.

Respondent No. 9 was removed from the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak (GRS) in 2016

Following this removal, Janpad Panchayat Vijaypur issued a fresh advertisement on 16.12.2016, wherein the Petitioner was placed at serial no. 1 in the provisional select list

Respondent No. 9 challenged his removal in W.P. No. 2815/2017. On 07.11.2019, the High Court set aside the removal of Respondent No. 9 due to violations of natural justice but, noting his contract had expired, directed the authorities to consider extending his contract; if found unsuitable, the authorities were directed to appoint a GRS from the merit list prepared in the intervening recruitment process

On 09.08.2021, the respondents declined to extend Respondent No. 9's contract

The Petitioner subsequently sought appointment based on his merit position, but the respondents failed to act, citing a statewide suspension of GRS appointments

The Petitioner filed the present writ seeking implementation of the select list and the previous court order

1. Whether the respondents are bound to act upon the merit list prepared during the pendency of earlier litigation once the previous incumbent’s claim for contract extension was rejected.

2. Whether the alleged statewide suspension of recruitment and the lapse of time since the preparation of the select list justifies the non-appointment of the Petitioner.

The court relied on the principles of finality of judicial orders, as the directions in W.P. No. 2815/2017 regarding the use of the merit list were never challenged

It also applied the guidelines for the appointment and extension of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, specifically Clause 11 regarding contract extensions

Furthermore, the court referred to the administrative instructions dated 02.06.2012 and the subsequent memo dated 01.11.2022, which granted permission to proceed with GRS appointments despite claims of a statewide suspension

The court reasoned that the directions issued in the earlier round of litigation (W.P. No. 2815/2017) were explicit: if Respondent No. 9 was not found entitled to an extension, the vacancy was to be filled via the merit list prepared during the recruitment process

Since Respondent No. 9’s extension was officially declined and that decision attained finality, the contingency triggered the requirement to use the existing merit list

The court dismissed the respondents' argument regarding the suspension of appointments, noting that a memo from the Commissioner of the M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council dated 01.11.2022 expressly permitted appointments under the 2012 instructions

The court further observed that the post remained vacant and the Petitioner’s right to be considered, having been litigated for nearly nine years, could not be frustrated by administrative delay or a misplaced reliance on a general suspension of recruitment

The Court directed the respondents to process the provisional select list (Annexure P/6) and grant the Petitioner appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, provided no other legal impediments exist

The respondents were ordered to conclude this process within 90 days of receiving the certified order

The challenge to the memos dated 01.11.2022 and 20.12.2019 was dismissed as misconceived