Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal has set aside the termination of several Class-III employees working in District Court establishments, holding that their removal after more than two decades on the ground of alleged illegality in appointment could not be sustained. The Court quashed the termination orders issued in October 2017 and directed that the employees be reinstated to their respective posts, without back wages, with consequential promotional and service benefits as permissible in law.

The writ petitions were filed by several district court employees challenging their removal from service through orders dated 28 October 2017. The petitioners had been appointed to Class-III posts in district court establishments during 1994–1995, following applications submitted by their parents seeking voluntary retirement under the prevailing policy framework. The appointments were made after written examinations and interviews, and the petitioners continued in service for approximately 22 to 25 years, receiving regular promotions during this period.

Also Read: Alleged Forged Arbitration Agreement Renders Dispute Non-Arbitrable; Supreme Court

The impugned termination orders were issued after a scrutiny exercise conducted pursuant to directions in a public interest litigation concerning illegal public appointments. The respondents contended that the petitioners’ appointments were contrary to the applicable policy on compassionate appointments and violated the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Medical Examination) Rules, 1972. A committee report concluded that the petitioners’ parents had not been declared medically unfit and that the appointments were therefore illegal.

The petitioners disputed these findings, asserting that no statutory recruitment rules governed Class-III district court appointments at the relevant time and that their appointments were made through a regular selection process without misrepresentation or fraud. They further contended that reopening appointments after more than two decades was impermissible under settled legal principles.

The Court observed that “prior to 2016 there were no statutory rules or laws governing the appointment of employees in the District Court establishment” and that “in the years 1994 and 1995 no rules were applicable for the appointment of Class-III employees in the District Court establishment”.

It recorded that “the District Judges were entitled to recruit candidates in the usual manner against the vacancies of Class-III employees as and when they occur in their respective establishments” and therefore “the District Judge was competent to appoint employees at his discretion, as there was no specific procedure or rule governing such appointments at the relevant time”.

The Bench observed that “the applicable rules governing the appointment of employees were neither examined by the Committee constituted pursuant to the directions issued in the case of Mansukh Lal nor considered by the Division Bench of this Court” and consequently “the judgment in Rakesh Dubey is per incuriam, as the findings were rendered without applying the relevant rules and circulars”.

It stated that “there was no adoption of the State Government rules, namely the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Examination) Rules, 1972, at the relevant time” and further noted that “the said rules were not applicable at the time of appointment of the petitioners”.

The Court recorded that “employees have a right to seek voluntary retirement, and no one can be compelled to continue in service against his will” and that “once an application for voluntary retirement is accepted without requiring a medical examination, no irregularity can be attributed to such acceptance”.

The Bench observed that “at the highest, the only irregularity was the non-compliance with the circular requiring prior sanction of the High Court” and clarified that “such lapses amount to an irregularity and not an illegality”. It further noted that “the appointee continued in service for nearly 20 to 25 years, and orders of promotion were forwarded to the High Court for approval; however, the High Court never raised any objection”, which “clearly indicates deemed approval of the appointment”.

Finally, the Court stated that “the appointment of the petitioners was not illegal or void ab initio; at the most, it suffered from an irregularity which, after the petitioners rendered about 25 years of service, stood automatically cured” and concluded that “the termination after about 22 years of service is bad in law”.

Also Read: Decree Holder Cannot Trigger Execution By Refusing Judgment Debtor’s Cheque Tendered In Satisfaction Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Court directed that “the impugned order dated 28.10.2017 is quashed. The petitioners are reinstated to their respective posts without back wages. All consequential promotional and service benefits shall be granted in accordance with law”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Lavanya Verma, Advocate; Shri Kaustubh Shanker Jha, Advocate; Shri Siddhant Jain, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri Brajesh Nath Mishra, Advocate

Case Title: Mohd. Shamim and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others               

Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-JBP:9093

Case Numbers: W.P. Nos. 11415 of 2018, 18436 of 2017, 20072 of 2017, 20158 of 2017

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia, Justice Pradeep Mittal