Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj Singh Rajput vs State Of M.P. on 18 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18014
1 WP-4409-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 18 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4409 of 2012
SURAJ SINGH RAJPUT
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri S.K.Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal -Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs.
1. That the impugned order dated 21.06.2012 Annexure P/1 and P/2 may kindly be quashed.
2. That, respondents may kindly be directed to grant all privileges of services continue the services of the petitioners.
3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition.
2. Petitioner has applied for the post of Patwari. As per the advertisement issued in the year 2008, the last date of submission of form was 7th of July 2008, relevant clauses of said advertisement regarding last date and qualification are quoted herein below:-
4. भरा हु आ आवेदन प जमा करना:
भरा हु आ आवेदन-प 07.07.2008 तक म डल कायालय म डाक ारा या य गत प से ा हो जाना चा हये। िनधा रत ितिथ के प ात ् ा आवेदन-प को िनर त माना जायेगा।Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:25:00 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18014 2 WP-4409-2012 1.8 शै णक यो यता:
हायर सेकं या हाई कूल (10+2) उ ीण होना अिनवाय है साथ ह 'O' Level certification from DOEACC/IETE या UGC से मा यता ा व व ालय ारा संचािलत/पंजीकृ त/मा यता ा /स ब सं था से 1 वष य क यूटर ड लोमा(DCA) या क यूटर म उ च िश ा ा होना चा हये।
3. In the year, 2009 the result of Patwari selection examination was declared and Petitioner was sent for training on the basis of his merit position. In the year 2010, Petitioner had completed training successfully. Thereafter, by order date 24th February 2011, Petitioner was appointed on the post of Partwari. The petitioner joined on the said post and started working. Thereafter respondents have issued show-cause notices dated 4.4 2012 Annexures P/9 and P/10. In show-cause notice, the respondents mentioned that the Petitioner has not acquired qualification of PGDCA/DCA till 7.7.2008. Thereafter his services were terminated. The Petitioner submitted the reply, however vide Annexures P/1 an P/2 services of the petitioner have been terminated.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, present writ petition has been filed before this court. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been appointed and sent for training and he has already completed the training and therefore the respondents cannot terminate the services of the petitioner on the basis of qualification acquired after cut-off date i.e. 7.7. 2008.
5. Per contra learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the petitioner has acquired the qualification of BCA on 29.6. 2009 after the cut-off date i.e. 7th July 2008. He further submitted that by order dated 8.03.2011, passed in W.P. No. 2871/2010 (Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar v. State of M.P.) the Division Bench of this Court has already decided that cut-off date i.e 7.7.2008 cannot be extended. He further relied upon the case of Sanjay Datt Dubey v. State of M.P. and Ors., 2022 (1) MPLJ 105 wherein it has also been held that appointment made is bad in law Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:25:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18014 3 WP-4409-2012 as the educational qualification prescribed in Patwari Examination, acquired after cut offe date i.e 7.7. 2008. He submitted that in the present case, there appears same situation. Hence, he supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the present petition.
6. Heard the counsel of both the parties and perused the record.
7. It is settled position that if cut-off date is not prescribed, then the last date of submission of form is cut-off date as per judgement dated 8.3.2011 passed in W.P. No. 2871/2010 (), relevant para of which is quoted herein below:-
11.Accordingly, we hold and answer the question referred to us by holding that the circular dated 27.7.2009 and 26.08.2009 do not extend the cut-off date for acquiring eligibility or educational qualification upto 30th of November, 2009, it only applies to such of the candidates who already acquired the qualification prior to 7.7.2008 who had submitted the degree certificates or diploma certificates issued by a particular institute. The circular only permits such candidates to submit the degree diploma certificates issued under the seal and signature of the university on or before 30th of November, 2009.
8. Further, Relevant para in the case of Sanjay Datt Dubey (supra) is quoted herein below:-
25. As private respondents did not have educational qualification prescribed in Patwari Examination 2008 on cutoff date i.e. on 7-7-2008 therefore, their appointment is bad in law. Respondent No.1 is directed to take action in case of private respondents in W.P No. 10216/2012 and W.P No. 1293/2013 accordingly.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:25:00 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18014 4 WP-4409-2012
9. In the another judgement, the division Bench also held in W.A. No. 207/2017 (Ravi Soni v. State of M.P.) by Judgement dated 17.4.2017, as under:-
In view of the decision of Division Bench rendered in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh Parihar & others Vs State of M.P & others passed in WP No. 2871/2010 (s) dated 08/03/2011 the issue involved herein is no more res-integra.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that other equally situated candidates who acquired qualification subsequent to the cut-off date were given benefit by Annexure P-4, Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6. The appellant is thus seeking negative parity which is de-horse the constitutional scheme. If a benefit has been wrongly extended by the State then the same can not be repeated by judicial interference on the anvil of similar treatment. Article 14/16 of Constitution of India do not recognize negative parity as a good ground. This court is bolstered in its view by the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 wherein the Apex Court held thus:-" by now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it can not be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favor of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, other can not invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order Chandigarh Admn. V Jagjit Singh, Jaipur Development Authority V Daulat Mal Jain, Union of India Vs J.V. Subhaiah, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:25:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18014 5 WP-4409-2012 Gurusharan Singh V. NDMC, State of Haryana V. Ram Kumar Mann, Faridabad CT. Scan Centre V. D.G. Health Services, Style (Dress Land) V. UT, Chandigarh, State of Bihar V Kameshar Prasad Singh, Union of India V. International Trading Co. and Directorate of Film Festival V. Gaurav Ashwin Jain". And the same dictum has been followed in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs Chadreshwar Pathak, (2014) 13 SCC 232.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner has acquired the qualification of BCA on date 29.6.2009 i.e. after cut-off date i.e.7.7.2008, therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/2, warranting interference.
11. Accordingly, the present petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE ar Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:25:00 AM