VIDYADHAR JAGANNATH BHAVE Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally in Special Civil Application No. 792 of 1970 petitioner No. 2 Kisan Shamrao Dhoke was a party petitioner. However, in order to obviate any technical stand by the respondents, the petitioner No. 2 filed a fresh petition, being Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1970. The facts in relation to both these Special Civil Applications being the same are dealt with by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in both these petitions were originally appointed in 1949 as clerks, who were then called Registration Moharirs in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. In 1953 they were confirmed in that post of Registration Moharir and in 1955 both the petitioners passed the departmental examination for promotion and had in fact officiated as Sub-Registrars, On the reorganisation of the States on 1-11-1956, the petitioners were absorbed as clerks and a common seniority list was issued in relation to the clerks so employed. The said seniority list came into effect from 2-11-1956 where in petitioner Vidyadhar Jagannath Bhave in Special Civil Application No. 792 of 1970 was shown at item No. 83, while Kisan Shamrao Dhoke petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 853 of 1970, was shown at item No. 80. The respondents Nos. 3 to 9 in both these petitions are admittedly lower down in the seniority list as they were appointed subsequently to the petitioners. On 12-11-1957 the posts of Moharirs and clerks were equated. It may be mentioned at this stage that in the erstwhile Bombay State the cadre of the Sub-Registrar was divided into four grades called, I, II, III and IV and this cadre used to be filled in by promotion from amongst the clerks and also by direct recruitment. In accordance with this seniority list and in accordance with the equation of Moharirs with clerks in 1962 Kisan Shamrao Dhoke was promoted as officiating Sub-Registrar and similarly in 1963 Vidyadhar Jagannath Bhave was also promoted as officiating Sub-Registrar. However, on 2nd September 1966 both these petitioners were reverted to the post of clerks. On 21-4-1962, 17-5-1963 and 2-6-1966 the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively were promoted to Grade III in the said cadre. So far as the respondents Nos. 6 to 9 are concerned, they were promoted in Grade IV on 1-3-1965, 8-4-1967, 27-4-1967 and 25-4-1970 respectively. Therefore, after the reversion of the petitioners on 2-9-1966 the respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were promoted in Grade IV in April 1967. It is the case of the petitioners that these promotions of the respondents Nos. 3 to 9 are contrary to the Rules published on 2-12-1959 and 28-11-1962. Under these Rules, either of 2-12-1959 or 28-11-1962, promotions to the grades of Sub-Registrar are set out. Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules published on 2-12-1959 for Recruitment Rules for the various Gazetted and non-Gazetted posts in the Registration Department relevant for the purpose of these petitions are as follows :

(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to interpret only Rule 4 of the Rules either of 1959 or of 1962. Rule 4 in terms states that for the posts of Sub-Registrar Grade IV, the same shall be filled by promotion of clerks who have passed the departmental examination. As stated above, it is not disputed that the petitioners have passed the departmental examination and have qualified to be promoted as Sub-Registrars, Grade IV. The only contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that both the petitioners were asked to be posted in the office of the Inspector- General of Registration, They refused to do so. While the respondents Nos. 6 to 9 were in fact working as the clerks in the office of the Inspector-General of Registration. That the clerks in the office of the Inspector-General of Registration stand in a special category and that they form a different class, because the clerks who work in the office of the Inspector- General of Registration are entitled under Rule 3 to be promoted as Sub-Registrars, Grade III. What is argued is that as the respondents Nos. 6 to 9 were competent and entitled to be promoted to the posts of Sub-Registrars, Grade III, the first respondent was entitled to promote them to Grade IV, which was in fact a post lower than that of Grade III, it is not possible for us to accept this contention. In so far as promotion to Sub-Registrar, Grade IV is concerned, the rule itself is specific that the clerks, who have passed the departmental examination, are entitled to be promoted as Sub-Registrars, Grade IV, in accordance with the seniority list, irrespective of the fact as to in which office they are working.