MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON ROHIT SINGH BAIS V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, March 11 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9:

1. Appellant has assailed the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17216/2025; whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of appellant expired on 03.12.2020 and the appellant applied for compassionate appointment, which was duly granted to the appellant vide order dated 02.11.2021 on the post of Ward Boy, however, the appellant failed to join the posting within 7 days, therefore, the order of compassionate appointment was withdrawn and the case for grant of compassionate appointment was closed. The appellant submitted a representation firstly for appointing him on the post as per his educational qualification and thereafter for permitting him to join on the post of Ward Boy but the same were not considered, therefore, the appellant preferred writ petition seeking quashment of the letter dated 21.03.2025; whereby the appellant was allegedly came to know that the compassionate appointment letter dated 02.11.2021 had already been withdrawn. The appellant also sought the relief for issuance of direction to the respondent to appoint the appellant in furtherance of order dated 02.11.2021.

3. Counsel for the appellant submits that order dated 02.11.2021 was never communicated to the appellant, therefore, the order could not be withdrawn on account of failure of appellant to join the post.

4. This contention of the counsel for appellant appears to be incorrect in view of the fact that on 18.11.2021 the appellant himself wrote a letter to the Additional Director praying consideration of his educational qualification and appoint him on any other post. In the above letter, the appellant specifically mentioned that he has been informed regarding appointment on the post of Ward Boy. The said contention of the appellant speaks everything and appellant cannot be permitted to raise the issue that he was not informed regarding his appointment on the post of Ward Boy. No illegality was committed by the respondent in withdrawing the compassionate appointment order as the appellant failed to join the post.

5 . We find no ground to interfere in the impugned order and we are in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.