Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti, Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21471
1 RP-475-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 475 of 2026
DEVENDRA SINGH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Mihir Agrawal,
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh, Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Paresh Pareek, Advocate for respondent No.5 on advance copy.
ORDER
The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 24-02-2026 passed in W.P. No.13979/2011 (Bharat Bhushan Pandey vs. The State of M.P. & Ors).
2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the advertisement in question, pursuant to which the selection process was initiated, has been placed on record as Annexure-P/2, dated 08-07-2006. A perusal of the said advertisement reflects that the prescribed eligibility criterion was that the candidate must have passed the Higher Secondary Examination under the 10+2 System. It is submitted that the aforesaid eligibility condition already formed part of the advertisement itself and, therefore, it could not have been held that the rules of the game were subsequently altered by the Gram Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 18-03-2026 13:56:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21471 2 RP-475-2026 Panchayat by passing a resolution dated 12-08-2006. It is thus, contended that this Court, while deciding the writ petition by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512, fell in an error inasmuch as the present case was not one where the rules of the game were changed after the players had entered into the arena.
3. The senior counsel for the review petitioner further contends that the petitioner was selected way-back in the year 2006 and has continued in service for more than 20 years. It is, therefore, contended that any order passed by this Court, at this stage, would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that since the writ petitioner had not assailed the advertisement, therefore, he could not have subsequently questioned the same.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced, a perusal of the record reflects that the present review petition has been preferred on the basis of the advertisement placed on record as Annexure-P/2. A perusal of the advertisement reflects that therein the Gram Panchayat had prescribed the eligibility criteria to the following effect :
"1.उ मीदवार 10+2 णाली के अंतगत हायर सेक उ ीण होने चा हए।
2. ... ... ... ...
7. ... ... ... ...."
5. If the aforesaid eligibility criteria is juxtaposed with the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995, it would reveal that the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement was contrary to the provisions of the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995. Under the Panchayat Karmi Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 18-03-2026 13:56:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21471 3 RP-475-2026 Yojna, 1995, the prescribed eligibility was 10th or High School Exam passed with 10+2 System. Clause 3.1 of the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995, being relevant, is reproduced:
"3.1 उ मीदवार 10+2 णाली के अ तगत क ा दसवीं या हाई कूल सट फकेट पर ा उ ीण होगा ।"
6. Undisputedly, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated on 12- 08-2006, which was subsequent to the advertisement dated 08-07-2006. Consequently, on the strength of such subsequent resolution, the advertisement dated 08-07-2006 (Annexure-P/2) could not have been validated by the Gram Panchayat under the garb of powers conferred upon it in terms of Clause 3.3 of the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995. Further, when the eligibility criteria pertaining to educational qualification was already incorporated in the advertisement dated 08-07-2006, it remains unexplained as to what necessitated the Gram Panchayat to pass a resolution subsequently on 12-08-2006, as no justification in this regard has been furnished by the review petitioner in the present petition.
7. Upon consideration of the record, this Court has allowed/disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Chief Executive Officer, Jilla Panchayat, Satna to undertake scrutiny of the candidature of all candidates in accordance with the eligibility criteria laid down in Clause 3.1 of the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995. As this Court has held the resolution to be a nullity, therefore, attempt on the part of the Gram Panchayat of passing a resolution to perpetuate an illegality, even otherwise, was unsustainable.
Neither the said Clause of the advertisement nor subsequent resolution dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 18-03-2026 13:56:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21471 4 RP-475-2026 12-08-2006 were in consonance with the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present review petition.
8 . Ex-consequenti, the present review petition, being devoid of any substance, is hereby dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE ac Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 18-03-2026 13:56:53