KESHAV NIWAS SAXENA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE law has to be made clear in regard to the holding of often cited decision of this Court in Brij Kishore Sharma's case, 1988 MPLJ 363 = 1988 JLJ 137 = 1988 MPRCJ (HC) 162. That we are required to do because reliance is placed by Shri K. N. Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, on the decision of this Court rendered on 164 -1992 in Misc. Petition No. 2819 of 1990, Smt. Madhu Vaish, to which one of us (Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.) was a party. Otherwise, on a short point the petition could be disposed of on its limited scope, judicially confined under the orders passed earlier in this matter.

(2.) AT one stage, before this Court, on 12 -3 -1992, the contention pressed was of hostile discrimination vis -a -vis one K. K. Thakuriya. That order was passed by Division Bench of which one of us (Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.) was a member. To consider obviously that contention time was granted to respondent -State to file additional return and that has today come before us. We heard this matter on 5 -8 -1992, 11 -8 -1992, 19 -8 -1992 and finally we are disposing of this petition today. We had also taken the view that the question to be decided is, if petitioner suffered hostile discrimination vis -a -vis Kishore Kumar Thakuriya.

(3.) IT is true that in Smt. Madhu Vaish (supra) relief was given to the petitioner and that was done following this Court's decision in Brij Kishore Sharma 's case (supra). However, what is to be noted is that on a clear finding that was done - - 'It is not disputed that the petitioner is covered by the circulars.' Shri Gupta submits that Smt. Madhu Vaish (supra) had also been appointed for 29 days and had not been continued ever thereafter but those facts are not projected in the order and that does not appear to be basis for that order. The order proceeded on the basis of a concession as stated above.