KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA Vs. KESHAV LAL MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 14/11/2007 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court allowing Writ Petition No. 5768/06 (s) filed by the writ petitioner, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 1 in this writ appeal, has been assailed by the appellant by preferring this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. By the impugned order, the learned Writ Court has directed respondent No. 2 to place the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 above the appellant holding him to be senior.

(2.) The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner filed Original Application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal challenging his placement after the appellant which was registered as O.A.752/95. The Learned Tribunal, on the basis of the return of the State Government, allowed the said Original Application by directing the State Government to place him above the appellant and for providing all the consequential benefits. This Order of the learned Tribunal was assailed by the appellant by filing a writ petition before this Court (WP No. 2061/97). The Division Bench allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 24/2/2000 and quashed the order of the learned Tribunal and remitted the matter to the learned Tribunal to re-decide the case by paying heed in respect to the point of limitation, since the Original Application was filed after more than one decade. However, the matter could not be decided by the learned Tribunal and, in the meantime, the Tribunal was abolished and the Original Application was received by this Court and was registered as Writ Petition No. 3466/03. Said writ petition was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous vide order dated 25/8/2005 in view of the promotion order dated 31/8/2004 issued in favour of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. Hence, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the position which stood in the year 1981 (when the first gradation list was published) has been restored in which the appellant was shown to be senior to that of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and this status continued for years together and therefore, after the lapse of more than two decades, it cannot now be changed by holding respondent No. 1/writ petitioner to be senior to that of appellant.

(3.) Further the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that if the regularisation order dated 28/2/1978 (Annexure R-5/4) of the appellant is considered in its stricto sensu, since services of the appellant were regularised, the clog which was initially put on his service career when he was appointed as an ad hoc employee against the post of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, has been removed, and if that would be the position, in view of Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961, (herein after, referred to as "1961 Rules"), for no rhyme or reason, the appellant can be treated as a junior employee to that of respondent/writ petitioner.