Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15090
1 WP-17968-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 17968 of 2022
DEVENDRA SINGH GURJAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kaushlendra Singh Tomar- GA appearing for respondents/State.
ORDER
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the conditions enumerated in Clauses 4, 6, 20 and 26 of the advertisement dated 19/07/2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby, the candidates of the School Education Department who are already working as Block Resource Coordinator (BRC) on deputation at Janpad Shiksha Kendra have been debarred from participation in the process for filling up the posts of Development Resource Coordinator and Assistant Project Coordinators through deputation.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, though substantively working as teachers in the Department of School Education, however, by virtue of the selection process conducted by the respondents, the petitioners were selected and posted on deputation at Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/9/2026 3:52:24 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15090 2 WP-17968-2022 Rajya Shiksha Kendra vide order dated 26/04/2012 as Block Resource Coordinators. The impugned advertisement intending to post DPC and BRC on deputation contains Clauses 4, 6, 20 and 26, which debars the already working BRCs on deputation from participation in the said process on the ground that they have already completed four years period on deputation and are required to be repatriated for a "cooling-off period," violates Articles 14 and 16 guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India. He submits that a similar issue cropped up for consideration before this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and Ors. (WP. 21972 of 2015) and other connected petitions (Annexure P/7), whereby the appointment on deputation was sought to be made on the post of Janpad Shikshak and Block Academic Coordinators. The persons posted as Adhyapaks were restrained from participation and the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 9/12/2016, which was affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 03/11/2017 passed in WA No. 702/2017 (Annexure P/8). He submits that on the same analogy, the impugned clauses of the advertisement dated 19/07/2022 deserve to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that the substantive post of the petitioner is of teacher in the School Education Department. The deputationist cannot be permitted to continue on the post on deputation for all times to come. The impugned clauses, which restrict participation of already posted deputationists, cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The circulars of the GAD categorically Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/9/2026 3:52:24 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15090 3 WP-17968-2022 postulate that the maximum period of deputation can be four years and thereafter, the deputationist has to be returned to the parent department. He submits that the writ petition challenging the very same advertisement conditions in WP No. 17360 of 2022 has been dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, vide order dated 31/10/2022 (Annexure R/4). Since the validity of the conditions of the very same advertisement has already been upheld, the petition deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that earlier, for a period of more than 10 years, the petitioners have continued on deputation, and thereafter by virtue of the interim order, they are still continuing on deputation.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners are substantively the employees of the School Education Department and their substantive posts are that of teachers. Though by way of deputation, they have been selected for being posted as BRC, however, the said deputation cannot be permitted to continue for all times to come. The policy decision of the State providing a maximum period of deputation of four years is not under challenge. The coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 31/10/2022 passed in WP No. 17360 of 2022 (Narayan Singh Rajpoot and Ors. vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) , while considering the validity of the very same clauses of the very same advertisement, has held as under:
"7. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by 18 petitioners who are working either on the post of B.R.C. (Block Resources Coordinator) or as A.P.C. (Assistant Project Coordinator) on deputation since last about 10 years Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/9/2026 3:52:24 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15090 4 WP-17968-2022 and are assailing conditions No.4, 6 & 26 of the impugned advertisement dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure P/4) issued by respondent No.2 by which applications are invited for filling up the said two posts.
1.1 The grievance is that conditions No.4, 6 & 26 debar the petitioners from participating in the said selection and thus it is contended that the same is violative of Article 16 of Constitution of India.
2. This Court has heard learned counsel for rival parties on admission and so also final disposal. The record is perused.
3. It is not disputed at the bar that petitioners hold different teaching posts on a substantive basis under the Public Instructions Department and sometime in 2011 were appointed on deputation to the posts of B.R.C. and A.C.P. vide Annexure P/1.
3.1 It is further undisputed that petitioners have been working since last more than 10 years on deputation with the Rajya Shiksha Kendra.
3.2 The State is now trying to fill up the said posts vide impugned advertisement, but has excluded the petitioners from participating on the ground that persons working on this post since more than four years on deputation will not be considered unless there is a gap of two years from the expiry of the period of deputation.
3.3 It is settled principle of service jurisprudence that a person who is working on deputation has no right to continue as such and cannot raise a grievance on his repatriation to his parent department unless ground of mala fide or violation of any statutory or constitutional provision is made out. Preventing the petitioners from being considered for the said posts will not deprive them of their services in parent department. At best the petitioners would be repatriated and will continue to work on their substantive posts in the Department of Public Instructions and, therefore, no adverse effect either to their salary or to any of their service conditions Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/9/2026 3:52:24 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15090 5 WP-17968-2022 would occasion.
3.4 Ostensibly, it appears that the petitioners' right to be considered for public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution is violated, but in reality, it is not so. The State is attempting to open up the avenue of employment qua these posts for other persons and while doing so the petitioners have been debarred from participating. A deputationist has no right to continue on the post which he holds on deputation unless he can demonstrate that there is an enabling statutory provision.
4. Having so held, this Court declines interference and dismisses this petition at the very outset.
5. Accordingly, declining admission this writ petition stands dismissed."
8. The petitioners herein are similarly situated with the petitioners in WP No. 17360 of 2022; Narayan Singh Rajpoot (Supra). Looking to the fact that the validity of the impugned conditions of the very same order dated 19.07.2022 is already affirmed by the coordinate bench of this Court, this Court has no reason to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE ar Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/9/2026 3:52:24 AM