LOCHAN PRASAD MARAVI Vs. D R DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was appointed as a Process Writer in the District Court Establishment, Bilaspur and was removed pursuant to a departmental enquiry vide order No. 628/11-16-17/91, dated 14-9-1999, passed by respondent No. 1 while he was working as a District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, has challenged the validity of elevation of respondent No. 1 as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh saying it to be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India.

(2.) AS stated in the petition, the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Category. He makes allegations that during the year 1997, respondent No. 1, while he was working as the District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, appointed as many as 12 employees but none of them belonged to SC/ST Category. He pleaded that Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1994') mandates for the reservation of 20% vacancies for ST candidate and 16% vacancies for SC candidate in Class III and Class IV posts, but it was not followed and even against the reserve vacancy of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 illegally appointed a general candidate one Arvind Mishra vide order No. 573/2- 11-3/95, Bilaspur, dated 20-11-2000. He further pleaded that since there is a penal provisions under Section 6 of the aforesaid act which provides for punishment with imprisonment which may extend to 3 months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both against officer who violates the provisions of the Act, therefore, an action of making appointment against the roster by respondent No. 1 was totally against the law but instead of taking strict action against him, his name was recommended by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the then members of the collegiums, therefore, such elevation being against the Constitution, deserves to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition.