High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging 1992–97 Teacher Recruitments In Ratlam

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a PIL challenging Ratlam's 1992–97 Lower Divisional Teachers recruitment, citing an unexplained delay of over 33 years. The court held that service matters cannot ordinarily be pursued through PILs and found no merit in reopening decades-old appointments.

Add FPJ As a
Trusted Source
High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging 1992–97 Teacher Recruitments In Ratlam
FP News Service Updated: Friday, July 17, 2026, 08:50 PM IST
High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging 1992–97 Teacher Recruitments In Ratlam

High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging 1992–97 Teacher Recruitments In Ratlam | Representative Image

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the recruitment process for Lower Divisional Teachers conducted in Ratlam district between 1992 and 1997, holding that the petition suffered from an unexplained delay of more than three decades and was not maintainable as a PIL. 

A Division Bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Arjun Singh Rathore.

The petitioner had sought production of the original recruitment records, including Employment Exchange-sponsored candidate lists, eligibility verification documents, interview assessment sheets, district-wise merit lists, waiting lists and appointment orders.

The petition also sought an independent inquiry into the selection process under Operation Blackboard and corrective action, including cancellation of appointments if irregularities were found. 

During the hearing, the court questioned the petitioner over the delay of nearly 33–34 years in filing the petition.

In response, the petitioner's counsel submitted that a representation had been made only recently, following which the present petition was filed. 

The State opposed the plea, and after considering the submissions, the Bench held that the petitioner had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary delay.

The court further observed that no objections had been raised against the appointments during the period from 1992 to 1997 and noted that the dispute related to a service matter, which cannot ordinarily be pursued through a Public Interest Litigation. 

Holding that the petition lacked merit, the High Court dismissed the PIL.

Published on: Friday, July 17, 2026, 10:25 PM IST

RECENT STORIES