Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/12429/2021 of HARIOM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
W.P. No.12429/2021 IN THE HIGH COURTOF MADHYA PRADESH AT I N D O R E
IN THE HIGH COURTOF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12429 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1.[HARIOM S/O RAMCHARAN PIPLOTIYA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,]BHAWAR COLONY RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)BHAWAR COLONY RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.[RAJENDRA S/O BADRILAL KUSUM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RAM]RAHIM COLONY RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)RAHIM COLONY RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.[MANOJ S/O LAKSHMINARAYAN KUSUM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,]HOSPITAL ROAD RAJGARH, (MADHYA PRADESH)HOSPITAL ROAD RAJGARH, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI AVINASH KUMAR KHARE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THEPETITIONERS.)
AND
1.[THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY]VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. [COMMISSIONER M.P. RAJYA SIKHA KENDRA RAJEEV GANDHI]SHIKSHA MISSION AREA HILLS HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)SHIKSHA MISSION AREA HILLS HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.[COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAJGARH (MADHYA]PRADESH)PRADESH)
4.C.I.O. JILA PANCHAYAT, RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.[JILA PROJECT COORDINATOR EUDCATION CENTER, JILA]PANCHAYAT RJAGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)PANCHAYAT RJAGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, LEARNED DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THERESPONDENTS/STATE.)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking the followingrelief/s :
“7-1;g fd] izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks ;g funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd og W.P. No.5827/2018 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27@06@2018 dk vuqikyuizfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k }kjk rRdky fd;k tkosA7-2;g fd] dysDVj ¼losZ f'k{kk vfHk;ku½ 'kktkiqj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad27@10@2018 ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ls lacaf/kr ugha gS ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA 7-3;g fd] ;g Hkh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk CONCNo.3247/2018 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09@03@2019 vkosndx.k ls ij ca/kudkjhugha gSA7-4;g fd] vU; lgk;rk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; U;k;fgr esa mfpr le>s og Hkhiznku dh tkosA 7-5;g fd] ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk lO;; Lohdkj dh tkosA”
2. Earlier, the petitioners approached this Court by way of W.P. Nos.5787/2018, 5827/2018 and 9704/2018. The present petitioners were partiesin W.P. No.5787/2018. All these petitioners were claiming appointment onthe post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III by virtue of their passing“Guruji Patrata Pariksha”. The writ petition was filed jointly by SamvidaShala Shikshak who worked in District Rajgarh as well as in DistrictShajapur. All the petitions were disposed of by a common order dated27.6.2018 in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case ofManmohan Mathur V/s. State of M.P. (W.P. No.1102/2010). Incompliance of the aforesaid direction, the Collector, (Sarva ShikshaAbhiyan) Shajapur passed the order dated 27.10.2018 rejecting the claimof Lakhan Singh and Atmaram. The petitioners filed Contempt Petition(CONC No.3247/2018) before this Court alleging that the order passed inW.P. No.5787/2018 has not been complied with. The respondents producedthe copy of order dated 27.10.2018 and stated that the compliance has beendone. Therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of.
3. The petitioners were required to inform this Court that the order waspassed by the Collector, (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) Shajapur and they arefrom District Rajgarh and for them, the Collector, Rajgarh has not passedany order. The petitioners remained silent and got the contempt petitiondisposed of. Now, they have again approached this Court by way ofpresent petition seeking declaration that order dated 27.10.2018 does notapply to them and the order passed in the Contempt Petition is not bindingon them and the respondents be directed to comply with order passed inW.P. No. 5787/2018.
4. In W.P. No.5827/2018 the Collector/District Project Coordinator,Rajgarh was implead as respondent No.3 and Collector/District ProjectCoordinator, Shajapur was impleaded as respondent No.4 in the petition.The petitioners are suffering delay in deciding their claim because of filingjoint petition before this Court. They ought to have filed separate writpetitions for their individual claim by impleading the concernedrespondent in this matter. In order to save money, they have filed the jointpetition and now all this confusion arose and the contempt petition wasdisposed of. Since the petitioners are unemployed persons, therefore, theirdefault/mistake is ignored. Now, Collector, Rajgarh is directed to considerthe claim of the petitioners in the light of order passed by this Court inW.P. No.5827/2018 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiptof certified copy of this order. The petitioners are directed to serve certifiedcopy of this order with all relevant documents for deciding their claim.
5. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV