Madhya Pradesh High Court
C.K.Bisen (Chandra Kumar Bisen) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 23 rd OF JANUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 9640 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SHIVANAND MISHRA S/O SHRI PRYAGDEEN MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: SPORTS
OFFICER GOVT. MODEL SCIENCE COLLGE GOVT
MODEL SCIENCE COLLEGE REWA MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
NITYA NAND MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF M.P. THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE SECRETARY UNIVERSITY GRANT
COMMISSIONER BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. THE COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT BHOPALMP (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE PRINCIPAL GOVT MODEL SCIENCE
COLLEGE REWA MP REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT SONALI SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 13208 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
KULWANT SINGH GILL S/O A.S.GILL, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE (HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPT.) UPWAN NAGAR BODA BAGH (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
2
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAGAT SINGH - ADVOCATE AND SHRI SHIVAM HAZARI -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE SECRETARY, U.G.C.BAHADUR SHAH ZAGAR
MARG, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. THE COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ADMINISTRATOR /ADDL. DIRECTOR, HIGHER
E D U C A T I O N REWA DIVISION (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. PRINCIPAL JANATA COLLEGE DISTT-REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT SONALI SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 18320 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
DR. SHAKTI SINGH MANDLOI S/O LATE K.L. MANDLOI,
A G E D ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SPORTS
OFFICER SHRI JANKI RAMAN MAHAVIDYALAY
RANITAL JABALPUR FLAT NO. 204, DATT AVENUE
HOME SCIENCE COLLEGE ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
SARANSH KULSHRESHTHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR ITS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
3
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF HIGHER
EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY OFFICE OF
COMMISISONER HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT.
SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION THROUGH
SECRETARY BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW
DELHI (DELHI)
5. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT REGIONAL JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. PRINCIPAL CUM SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNING BODY SHRI JANKI RAMAN
MAHAVIDYALAYA RANITAL JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT SONALI SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 23613 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
DR. PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI
RAMKHELAWAN GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
WARD NO. 6 BUS STAND MAUGANJ P.S. MAUGANJ
DISTT., REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJROOP PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE SECRETARY UNIVERSITY GRANT
COM M ISSION BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
4
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. C O M M I S S I O N E R HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T SATPUDA BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(COMMERCE AND CIVI GOVERNMENT SAHID
KEDARNATH COLLEGE MAUGANJ DISTT.REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT SONALI SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 23933 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
DR. BASHIR KHAN PATHAN S/O LATE SHRI D.K.
PATHAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT. CHANDAS TOLA
WARD NO.12 NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAGAT SINGH - ADVOCATE AND SHRI SHIVAM HAZARI -
ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF HIGHER
EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE SECRETARY U.G.C. BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. THE COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T SATPUDA BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ADMINISTRATOR / ADDI DIRECTOR HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT REWA DIVISION
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. P R I N C I P A L GOVERNMENT ARTS AND
COMMERCE COLLEGE BYOHARI SHAHDOL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
5
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT NIRMALA NAYAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 528 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
RAJIV VYAS S/O LATE SHRI P.M. VYAS, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPT. PREM VIHAS COLONY GALI NO.2 SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAGAT SINGH - ADVOCATE AND SHRI SHIVAM HAZARI -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF HIGHER
EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE SECRETARY U.G.C. BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
M A R G BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW
DELHI (DELHI)
3. THE COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
SATPUDA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ADMINISTRATOR / ADDI.DIRECTOR HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT REWA DIVISION
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PRINCIPAL VANIJYA COLLEGE (COMMERCE
COLLEGE) DISTT.SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT NIRMALA NAYAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 7511 of 2020
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
6
BETWEEN:-
VIDYUT BHUSHAN AGNIHOTRI S/O SHRI ANIRUDDH
P R A S A D AGNIHOTRI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SPORTS OFFICER RAJBHANU SINGH
ISMARAK MAHAVIDYALAHY MANIKWAR REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NITYA NAND MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. THR. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL DIRECTOR HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DIVISION REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRINCIPAL RAJBHANU SINGH ISMARAK
MAHAVIDYALAY MANIKWAR REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 17356 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
DR. YOGENDRA SINGH CHAHAR S/O SHRI BIRI SINGH
CHAHAR , AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SPORTS OFFICER ( GOVT. EMPLOYEE) 48 SHANGRI LA
HOUSING SOCIETY HOSHANGABAD ROAD BABADIYA
KALA, P.S. MISRODH BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAGAT SINGH - ADVOCATE AND SHIVAM HAZARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
7
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF HIGHER
EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE SECRETARY U.G.C. BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ADMINISTRATOR/ ADDL. DIRECTOR HIGHER
E D U C A T I O N REWA DIVISION (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. PRINCIPAL GOVT. NARMADA COLLEGE DISTT-
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT SONALI SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 10317 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
KRISHNA KUMAR TIWARI S/O LATE SHRI RAMJIVAN
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE , SPORTS OFFICER IN GOVERNMENT SWAMI
VIVEKANANDA PG COLLEGE HARDA R/O SF-17
SANKALP APARTMENT NEAR POLICE STATION HARDA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHAY PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF M.P.
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. C O M M I S S I O N E R HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T SATPURA BHAWAN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. P R I N C I P A L GOVERNMENT SWAMI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
8
VIVEKANANDA PG COLLEGE HARDA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SECRETARY UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
BAHADUR SHAH JAFAR MARG (DELHI)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT NIRMALA NAYAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
WRIT PETITION No. 24452 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
PRABODH PATKAR S/O SHRI S L PATKAR, AGED ABOUT
62 YEARS, 323 SNEH NAGAR HANUMAN PURI
JABALPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
SARANSH KULSHRESTHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY OFFICE OF
COMMISSIONER HR. EDUCATION DEPTT.
SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSIONER THR.
S ECR ETARY BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
(DELHI)
5. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T REGION JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. PRINCIPAL CUM SECRETARY TO THE.
GOVERNING BODY D.N JAIN COLLEGE MALVIYA
CHOWK JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
9
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT NIRMALA NAYAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
WRIT PETITION No. 25950 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
KRISHNA KUMAR RAWAT S/O S.S.RAWAT, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SPORTS OFFICER
JAGDISH WARD GADARWARA TEHSIL GADARWARA
DISTT. NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHIVAM HAZARI - ADVOCATE AND SHRI JAGAT SINGH -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPTT. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SECRETARY UGC BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRINCIPAL SHAHEEDBHAGAT SINGH , GOVT
COLLEGE, PIPARIYA, HOSHANGABAD MP DISTT-
PIPARIYA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT NIRMALA NAYAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 3838 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
JASBEER SINGH SONDHI S/O LATE SHRI KUNDAN
SINGH SONDHI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SPORTS OFFICER GOVT. JATASHANKAR TRIVEDI
COLLEGE BALAGHAT R/O WARD NO. 18 GONDIA ROAD
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
10
BALAGHAT M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY
SHRISARANSH KULSHRESHTHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
P R I N C I PA L SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY OFFICE OF
COM M ISSIONER SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY BAHADUR SHAH JAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
5. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION JABALPUR REGION,
JABALPUR, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PRINCIPAL, GOVT. JATASHANKAR TRIVEDI POST
GREDUATION COLLAGE, BHALAGHAT
BALAGHAT, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT NIRMALA NAYAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
WRIT PETITION No. 8051 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
KULDEEP SINGH TOMAR S/O SHRI S.S. TOMAR, AGED
ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SPORTS OFFICER S-5
NIKHI HOMES, KUNJAN NAGAR, HOSHANGABAD
ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
11
SARANSH KULSHRESHTHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
P R I N C I PA L SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. C O M M I S S I O N E R , HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT SATPUDA BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, OFFICE OF
COMMISSIONER, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT SATPUDA BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MAR,
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
5. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR , DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION BHOPAL REGIONAL ,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PRINCIPAL , RAJABHOJ GOVERNMENT COLLEGE
MANDEEP, DISTRICT-RAISEN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SMT NIRMALA NAYAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
WRIT PETITION No. 25662 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
C.K.BISEN (CHANDRA KUMAR BISEN) S/O LATE SHRI
D I N ES H KUMAR BISEN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SPORTS OFFICER R/O BAMHANI,
BARGHAT DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHIVAM HAZARI - ADVOCATE AND SHRI JAGAT SINGH -
ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
12
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF HIGHER
EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE SECRETARY U.G.C. BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG , NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. THE COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
MADHYA PRADESH SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRINCIPAL ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE
CHOURAI CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
(BY SHRI SHIVAM MISHRA - ADVOCTAE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
WRIT PETITION No. 13363 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MANGLESH KUMAR SARMANDAL S/O LATE SHRI
S.N.SARMANDAL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICESPORTS OFFICER IN
GOVERNMENT COLLEGE PANDHANA DISTRICT
KHANDWA R/OCT-7NVDA COLONY CIVIL LINES
KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHAY PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPALSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
MADHYA PRADESH HIGHER EDUCATION R/O
VALLABH BHAWAN MANTRALAYA BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH SATPURA
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT COLLEGE
P A N D H A N A DISTRICT- KHANDWA(M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
13
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
These bunch of petitions can be bifurcated in two sets, namely, the common thread of grievance in these petitions, as has been raised by the petitioners, is that the order issued by the respondents ordering superannuation of the Sport Officers in the Government Colleges at the age of 62 years be quashed and they be directed to continue upto the age of 65 years.
2. Second set of petitions challenges the circular of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education dated 31.12.2008 issued vide No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(1) whereby it is provided in Clause 8(f)(III) that "the enhancement of the age of superannuation for teachers engaged in class rooms teaching is intended to attract eligible persons to a career in teaching and to meet the shortage of teachers by retaining teachers in service for a longer period, and whereas there is no shortage in the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education, the increase in the age of superannuation from the present sixty two years shall not be available to the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education."
3. Petitioners through amendment have also challenged the State Government order No.F 1-124-2010-1-38 dated 16.04.2010 wherein same provision has been retreated in Clause 11 holding that non teaching staff like Librarian, Sport Officers and others working on administrative post shall continue to retain their age of superannuation at 62 years.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 144. As far as validity of the orders of the Union of India dated 31.12.2008 and consequent orders of the State Government dated 16.04.2010 are concerned, ground which has been taken to assail said orders is that they are arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
5. However, no empirical data has been produced to counter the office memorandum dated 31.12.2008 which categorically provides that on account of there being no shortage in the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education, the increase in the age of superannuation from the present sixty two years shall not be available to the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education.
6. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to have produced empirical data to support their case that there is shortage of staff in the category of Librarians and Sport Officers and, therefore, they are entitled to continue upto the age of 65 years.
7. This aspect is dealt with by a Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.28329/2018 (Rajendra Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) decided on 01.09.2023, whereby claim for enhanced age of superannuation has been rejected.
8. Similarly another Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.21992/2019 (Norma Chacko Vs. The State of M.P. and Others) decided on 28.11.2023 has held that since the validity of circulars dated 31.12.2008 and 16.04.2010 is not under challenge and it is not the case of petitioner that aforesaid two circulars have been declared as ultra vires by the Supreme Court or by the High Court or have been withdrawn by the University Grants Commission as well as by the Department of Higher Education, the State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court is of the considered opinion that whether the distinction drawn by the State of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 15 Madhya Pradesh between the teachers, teaching inside the class rooms and teachers teaching outside the class rooms is based on intelligible differentia or not cannot be considered and under facts and circumstances, refuse to show any indulgence.
9. Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Hemlal Sahu Vs. Union of India, (2021) 4 SCT 546 wherein a declaration was sought that Rule 56(1-e) of the Fundamental Rules, applicable and amended by Chhattisgarh Shashkiye Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2012 is ultra vires and also relief was sought for benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years as was enhanced for the class room teachers has been rejected by a Division Bench and for the same analogy and the ratio of the law considered in the light of the decisions of Supreme Court in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 28 which read as under :-
17. In case of Kewal Singh Vs. Lajwanti reported in 1980 (1) SCC 290 Hon'ble Supreme Court while applying Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the provisions under challenge has made following observations:-
9. Lastly, we come to the question of the application of Article 14 to the provisions of the Act. This is undoubtedly a question which merits serious consideration. Before approaching this question we might observe that it is well settled that what Article 14 forbids is hostile discrimination and not reasonable classification. Discrimination may take place in many ways, and what Article 14 requires is that equals must be treated alike. If equals and unequals are also treated alike then Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 16 also Artcile 14 is clearly attracted and discrimination results. A reasonable classification based on grounds having a clear nexus with the objective to be achieved and grouping certain persons in a separate category in view of their special peculiarities is undoubtedly permissible. Of course, classification should not be purely a class legislation. It is also well settled that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and any party who seeks to challenge the legislation on the ground of applicability of Article 14 must plead and prove the necessary facts. In making a classification the court must presume matters of common knowledge, common report, history of the time and every other relevant fact.
18. In case of Dipak Sibal vs. Punjab University reported in (1989) 2 SCC 145 Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the grounds raised challenging the Statute, has held thus :-
"9. It is now well settled that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable classification.
Whether a classification is a permissible classification under Article 14 or not, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (2) that the differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
20. In considering the reasonableness of classification from the point of view of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 17 court has also to consider the objective for such classification. If the objective be illogical, unfair and unjust, necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable. In the instant case, the foregoing discussion reveals that the classification of the employees of government/semi-government institutions etc. by the impugned rule for the purpose of admission in the evening classes of three year LLB degree course to the exclusion of all other employees, is unreasonable and unjust, as it does not subserve any fair and logical objective. It is, however, submitted that classification in favour of Government and public sector is a reasonable and valid classification. In support of that contention, the decision in Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. v. Government of Kerala4, has been relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents. In that case, it has been observed that as far as government undertakings and companies are concerned, it has to be held that they form a class by themselves, since any project that they may make would in the end result in the benefit to the members of the general public........"
19. In case of State of AP v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi reported in (2001) 7 SCC 708 Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the test of permissible classification and held that classification to be in two folds; (i) whether classification is founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others who are excluded from the group and; (ii) Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 18 whether differentia has rational connection with the object sought to be achieved. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:-
"8. What Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits is "class legislation" and not "classification for purpose of legislation". If the legislature reasonably classifies persons for legislative purposes so as to bring them under a well-defined class, it is not open to challenge on the ground of denial of equal treatment that the law does not apply to other persons. The test of permissible classification is twofold: (i) that the classification must be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others who are left out of the group, and (ii) that differentia must have a rational connection to the object sought to be achieved. Article 14 does not insist upon classification, which is scientifically perfect or logically complete. A classification would be justified unless it is patently arbitrary. If there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of peculiar situation some included in a class get an advantage over others so long as they are not singled out for special treatment. In substance, the differentia required is that it must be real and substantial, bearing some just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation."
20. In case of AP Dairy Development Corporation vs. B. Narsimha Reddy reported in (2011) 9 SCC 286, Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the challenge made to Andhra Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 19 Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2006 on the ground of classification and hostile discrimination has observed as under :-
"18.It is well-settled law that Article 14 forbids class legislation, however, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Therefore, it is permissible in law to have class legislation provided the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. Law also permits a classification even if it relates to a single individual, if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him, and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself. It should be presumed that the legislature has correctly appreciated the need of its people and that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. There is further presumption in favour of the legislature that legislation had been brought with the knowledge of existing conditions. The good faith on the legislature is to be presumed, but if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 20 cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation. The law should not be irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as there must be nexus to the object sought to be achieved by it. (Vide Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar2 and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar3.)"
21. In case of Ramkrishna Grover vs. UOI reported in (2020) 12 SCC 506 Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with constitutional validity of Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 and its extension to the Union Territory Chandigarh, has considered whether it is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory or creates artificial classification, has held thus :-
"41. Legislature's primary function is to make laws for all or different groups or classes of persons. The lawmakers as elected representatives are in a better position than any other body which is removed from local and other circumstances, to know the needs, requirements and expectations of citizens. It, therefore, seems only logical that the legislature possesses the power to distinguish and classify persons or things subjected to such laws. Such a classification, however, must pass the muster of Article 14 which proscribes hostile and invidious discrimination. Recognising that Article 14 does not entirely prohibit classification by grouping certain persons with special Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 21 peculiarities in a special category to meet certain specific ends, this Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar24 had postulated two conditions which must be satisfied for a classification to withstand a challenge under Article 14, namely:
(i) the classification should be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation or nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi25, this Court had further elucidated that a challenge on the ground of denial of equal treatment will not sustain when the legislature intends to classify persons under a well-defined class. A classification need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete and would be justified unless it is palpably arbitrary. The test to judge the validity of any classification has to be practical and pragmatic by looking beyond the classification to the purpose of the law, that is, the purpose or object of the legislation and the circumstances which had prevailed when the law was passed and which had necessitated passing of that law. Not only this, there is a presumption as to constitutional validity of an enactment predicated on the belief that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people and is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restriction to only those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. The hardship that may result Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 22 from the classification cannot be the basis for determining the validity of any statute. This requires distinguishing between under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness. The former classification does not confer the same benefit or place the same burden on others who are similarly situated whereas over-
inclusiveness includes not only those who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose but others who are not so situated as well. The latter is frowned upon but the former may pass the judicial test for the courts do exercise tolerance to under- inclusiveness unless it is clear that there is no fair reason for the law which would not require with equal force its extension to those whom it leaves untouched (see Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India26, decided on 9-8- 2019).
28. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chiranjeet Lal Choudhary vs. UOI reported in AIR 1951 SC 41 has observed that if there is classification, the Courts will not held it invalid merely because the law might have been extended to other persons who in some respect might resemble the class for which the law was made for. The Legislature is the best Judge of the need of particular class to estimate the degree of anvil so as to adjust its legislation accordingly to the exigencies found to exist.
10. In the light of hte aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25 23 Division Bench of the Chhatisgarh High Court, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for either quashing the Office Memorandum dated 31.12.2008 and 16.04.2010 or to declare that petitioners are entitled to continue upto the age of 65 years.
11. Petitions fail and are dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE MTK Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 05-03-2024 11:01:25