JABALPUR, India, Feb. 25 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Jan. 27:

1. Appellant impugns order dated 29.10.2025; whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his termination has been dismissed.

2. Appellant had applied for appointment to the post of Forest Guard in the respondent-department. Appellant applied under the category of Home Guard Swayam Sevi Nagar Sainik/Bhootpoorva Sainik. Appellant was selected and at the time of documents verification, produced document to show that he had been employed as a Member of Nagar Raksha Samiti. During documents verification, the appellant was declared qualified and appointed. Subsequently when the error was detected that appellant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of the category of Home Guard/ Former Sainik, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and his services have been terminated.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that appellant was neither a Former Sainik nor was ever employed with the Home Guards. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that once appellant was appointed, his services could not have been terminated except after following the procedure of a departmental enquiry.

4. The learned writ court has noticed that the Members of Nagar Raksha Smiti are not Home Guards or Former Sainiks and has accordingly dismissed the petition.

5. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that appellant was not entitled to be considered under the said category. Mere fact that appellant has been appointed, would not entail that appellant becomes a valid Member of the force, who could only be terminated after following due procedure of a departmental enquiry.

6 . Admittedly appellant did not fulfil the pre-requisite condition of the category of Home Guard Swayam Sevi Nagar Sainik. Merely because a mistake is committed at the time of documents verification, same shall not be enure to the benefit of appellant, who was wrongly appointed to a particular position. The moment the error was noticed, services of the appellant were terminated.

7. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge or any merit in the appeal.

8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.