Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of M.P. on 20 May, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565
1 WP-1452-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 20th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1452 of 2011
DEVENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That a direction may kindly be issued to the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg III and also issue offer of appointment in his favour on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Varg III.
(ii) That any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted."
2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 31.07.1998, petitioner was appointed on the post of Alternative School Teacher at Alternative School Devipur, Gram Panchayat Bhuara. Petitioner also participated in the training. Thereafter, respondents issued an advertisement for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade III. A written examination was conducted. Petitioner also participated in the examination Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 2 WP-1452-2011 and he was declared successful. Still, respondents are not issuing the order of appointment.
3. Respondents filed their return and submitted that petitioner is not eligible. It is submitted by counsel for the State that earlier, petitioner was appointed as Guruji under the Education Guarantee Scheme but his services were dispensed with and he has worked only for a period of two years i.e. from 12.08.1998 to 22.07.2000. Furthermore, this petition has been filed by Devendra Singh Raghuvanshi whereas one Arun Pachori has filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition. Thus, the petition is not properly drafted and presented. It is further submitted that Rajya Shiksha Kendra vide its circular dated 26.07.2010 had directed that while shortlisting the eligible candidates, it should be kept in mind that the candidate must be continuously working on the post of Guruji from the date of appointment till today and must be receiving the honorarium regularly. It is submitted that since the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on 22.07.2000, therefore, he was not continuously working on the post of Guruji.
4. Heard counsel for the parties.
5. The respondents issued the advertisement for Observors and Instructors Eligibility Test, 2008. Petitioner was declared eligible and, accordingly, certificate-cum-marksheet was issued on 19.12.2008 which has been filed as Annexure P/5. In this certificate, it is specifically mentioned that petitioner has been declared successful in the eligibility test but on the basis of the aforesaid certificate, petitioner has not acquired any right for appointment.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 3 WP-1452-2011
6. It is clear from the advertisement that it was not an advertisement for recruitment but it was an eligibility test and in the certificate-cum- marksheet, it was specifically mentioned that getting successful in eligibility test would not give any right to get appointment. Even otherwise, it is well established principle of law that a selected candidate has no right to seek appointment.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Dilbagh Singh and Others reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 has held as under:
"12. If we have regard to the above enunciation that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his nonappointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, when the Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in that regard, we are unable to find that the Chandigarh Administration had acted either arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons in cancelling such dubious select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents as to the sustainability of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 4 WP-1452-2011 judgment of CAT under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the respondents (candidates in the select list) is a misconceived one and is consequently rejected."
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 has held as under:
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v.
Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 :
1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165], Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] , or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] . "
9. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. And Others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma And Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 330 has held as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 5 WP-1452-2011 "14. Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the candidates concerned cannot claim that they have been given a hostile discrimination. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95 :
AIR 1991 SC 1612] ; Asha Kaul v. State of J&K [(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 : (1993) 24 ATC 576] ; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal [(1996) 2 SCC 168 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 438 : (1996) 32 ATC 668 : AIR 1996 SC 2340] ;
Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India [(1996) 10 SCC 742 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 364] ; Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar [(1997) 3 SCC 198 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 775 : AIR 1997 SC 2280] ; Syndicate Bank v. Shankar Paul [(1997) 6 SCC 584 : AIR 1997 SC 3091] ; Vice- Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [(1997) 10 SCC 264 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1265] ; Punjab SEB v. Seema [1999 SCC (L&S) 629] ; All India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen [(2001) 6 SCC 380 : AIR 2001 SC 1851] ; Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut [(2002) 4 SCC 726 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 606] ; S. Renuka v. State of A.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 195 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 689 : AIR 2002 SC 1523] and Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar [(2004) 9 SCC 100 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 715 : AIR 2003 SC 4248] .)
15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [(1996) 7 SCC 426 : AIR 1996 SC 540] ; Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35] ; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801]; Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G., Health Services [(1997) 7 SCC 752]; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [(1999) 3 SCC 494 : AIR 1999 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 6 WP-1452-2011 SC 1347] ; State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal [(1999) 9 SCC 240 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171] ; Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi [(2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] ; Union of India v. International Trading Co. [(2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. President, Indore Development Authority [(2006) 2 SCC 604 : JT (2006) 2 SC 259] .)"
10. The Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Balu And Another Vs. State of Kerala And Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479 has held as under:
"12. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. A person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. (See Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti [(2006) 10 SCC 261 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 92] .) The State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies or an arbitrariness is committed, the candidate concerned will have no legal right for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. (See Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar [(2004) 9 SCC 100: 2004 SCC (L&S) 715] .) In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47: 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95] a Constitution Bench of this Court held: (SCC pp. 50-51, para 7)
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 7 WP-1452-2011 any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted."
13. In State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] this Court held: (SCC p. 226, paras 10-11) "10. ... The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the rules in this respect. ...
11. It must be remembered that the petition is for a mandamus. This Court has pointed out in Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v.
Nalanda College [AIR 1962 SC 1210] that in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15 persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance the petition is clearly misconceived."
14. In Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti [(2006) 10 SCC 261 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 92] this Court held: (SCC p. 273, para 32) "32. ... A candidate does not have any legal Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 8 WP-1452-2011 right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India has only a right to be considered therefor. Consideration of the case of an individual candidate although ordinarily is required to be made in terms of the extant rules but strict adherence thereto would be necessary in a case where the rules operate only to the disadvantage of the candidates concerned and not otherwise."
15. In State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chopra [(2007) 8 SCC 161 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 837] this Court held: (SCC pp. 164- 65, paras 9 and 11) "9. Recruitment for teachers in the State of Rajasthan is admittedly governed by the statutory rules. All recruitments, therefore, are required to be made in terms thereof. Although Rule 9(3) of the Rules does not specifically provide for the period for which the merit list shall remain valid but the intent of the legislature is absolutely clear as vacancies have to be determined only once in a year. Vacancies which arose in the subsequent years could be filled up from the select list prepared in the previous year and not in other manner. Even otherwise, in absence of any rule, ordinary period of validity of select list should be one year. In State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [(2006) 12 SCC 561 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 132] this Court opined: (SCC p. 564, para 9) '9. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel.' It was further held: (Amrendra Kumar case [(2006) 12 SCC 561 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 132] , SCC p. 565, para 13) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 9 WP-1452-2011 '13. The decisions noticed hereinbefore are authorities for the proposition that even the wait list must be acted upon having regard to the terms of the advertisement and in any event cannot remain operative beyond the prescribed period.' ***
11. It is well-settled principle of law that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this behalf. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95] and Asha Kaul v. State of J&K [(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 (1993) 24 ATC 576] .)"
16. Furthermore, the rank list was valid for a period of three years. Its validity expired on 5-6- 2000. Another select list was published for the period from 16-9-2002 to 15-9-2005. Vacancies in terms of the said select list have also been filled up.
17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. In NDMC v. Pan Singh [(2007) 9 SCC 278 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 398] this Court held: (SCC p. 283, para 16) "16. There is another aspect of the matter Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 10 WP-1452-2011 which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction."
(See also Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. [(2009) 1 SCC 297 :
(2008) 15 Scale 67] at SCC p. 302, para
17.)""
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors decided on 07.11.2024 in Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2013 has held as under:-
"42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:
(1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;
(2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 11 WP-1452-2011 of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-
arbitrariness;
(3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;
(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ nonarbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
(5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
(6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list."
12. Petitioner had participated in the eligibility test which was not meant for recruitment. It was for shortlisting the candidates. Even in the certificate-cum-marksheet, it was specifically mentioned that said certificate would not create any right to seek appointment. Furthermore, petitioner had passed the eligibility test in the year 2008. Seventeen long years have passed. Much water must have flown under the bridge. Under these circumstances, no case is made out warranting interference.
13. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11565 12 WP-1452-2011 AKS Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 27-05-2025 06:13:44 PM