MRIDULA CHINCHOLIKAR Vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are venting out their grievances of not getting promotion, by way of presentation of this writ petition challenging the order Annexure R-l by which respondent 3 Smt. Amita Makwana has been promoted to the post of P. A/steno on pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 in view of the decision taken by D. P. C. held on 5-1-2000.

(2.) SHRI C. B. Patne, counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of Annexure P-11, Notification of M. P. State dated 30th May, 96 published in Official Gazette dated 1-6-96, the State of M. P. categorised the cadre of the State Employees which included public relation officer at S. No. 14 falling in category or" Gazetted Officer Clause II. It further pointed out that senior stenographer falls in the cadre of Clause III employees and get pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. In view of that, it is submitted by Shri Patne that respondent No. 1 I. D. A. illegally promoted respondent 3 Smt. Makwana to the post of P. A. /steno at the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500. Shri C. B. Patne submitted that no post is in existence as "p. A. /steno" and, therefore, Smt. Makwana could not have been so promoted. He also submitted that without considering the claim of the petitioners, Smt. Makwana has been promoted to the post of P. A. /steno, unauthorisedly and without following the due process. He submitted that by issuing an appropriate writ, the said order be quashed.

(3.) SHRI A. K. Sethi, counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that a D. P. C. was held on 5-1-2000 in which Commissioner, Indore Division, Joint Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Division Indore, Incharge, Chief Executive Engineer, I. D. A. were present and by elaborate discussion and after recording elaborate minutes of the meeting, they decided to promote Smt. Makwana, respondent No. 3 to the post of P. A. /steno. Shri A. K. Sethi further submitted that such post is in existence and, therefore, it has been filled in by promoting Smt. Makwana. He pointed out that the criteria "seniority/utility" was followed and that was in the larger interest of I. D. A. and its business. He supported the said order by submitting that nothing wrong, nothing illegal has been done by I. D. A. ; therefore; W. P. needs to be dismissed.