SHYAM NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ appeal and the writ petitions, question involved is about the absorption of District Adult Education Officers (hereinafter referred to as "DAEOs") as Assistant Directors vide Order dated 9-4- 1999. Further question involved is whether they are entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director in view of the rules called M.P. Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1982").

(2.) Writ petition was filed by the appellant in WRIT Appeal No. 353/2007 in which prayer was made to quash decision dated 9-4-1999 to absorb DAEOs and to assign them seniority as Assistant Director, Education, final gradation list had also been assailed. Further prayer was made to direct the respondents to convene the DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Director and Deputy Director and to consider their names and the other eligible candidates ignoring DAEOs absorbed as Assistant Directors. Prayer was also made to treat the DAEOs as a separate cadre.

(3.) The amendment was incorporated in the year 1990 in the Rules of 1982 providing that if incumbents mentioned at Sr.No. 4-A of Schedule are not available, then incumbents having six years experience mentioned at Sr.No. 5 A, B and C of the Schedule may be considered to the promotion for the post of Deputy Director, Public Instructions if the persons working on the post at Sr. No. 4 of the schedule are not available. Appellants contended that order dated 9-4- 1999 passed by the State Govt. was contrary to the directions issued by the State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 24-11-1998 passed in OA No. 492/97. THE DAEOs had never sought such a relief which has been given by the State Govt, by its order. Adult education department should have been declared as a separate cadre in the school education department for the purpose of adult education with adequate provisions for protection of service conditions and chances of promotion in the form of an isolated service. THEre could not have been any merger and assignment of seniority to DAEOs as Assistant Directors. Under Rules of 1982, qualification, pay scale, etc. is governed by Rule 5 and Schedule I. Rule 5 prescribes the method of recruitment through direct recruitment, by promotion or by transfer of persons from such cadre/service as specified in column 5 of Schedule II. THE posts of Assistant Director, Public Instructions are filled 100% by promotion. Absorption was not the permissible mode. Absorption of DAEOs could not have been made for various other reasons. THE post of Assistant Director and Principal, Higher Secondary School is interchangeable. THE juniors to the principals have been absorbed as Assistant Directors without following any uniform policy. Certain incumbents were not promoted to the higher posts though they were having 5 years' experience as Assistant Director. Certain representations were filed pointing out the grievance, but with no avail. Considering the qualification required for the post of Assistant Director unequals have been treated as equals. Initially the DAEOs were having lesser pay scales as compared to that of Principals. THE final gradation list which was published was not in accordance with law, provisional gradation list was not published, without that final gradation list could not have been issued.