D K KURARIA Vs. RAJYA MATSYA VIKAS NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this intra-Court appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity of the dated 4.10.2007 passed by learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention which are stated herein under.

(2.) The appellant was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment vide order dated 2.6.1982 in the services of respondent No. 1 namely Madhya Pradesh Rajya Matsya Vikas Nigam. The service conditions of the appellant are governed by Madhya Pradesh Rajya Matsya Vikas Nigam Prabandhkiya Sewa Bharti Niyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1993) which have been framed by the respondent No. 1 Corporation with prior approval of the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Matsya Vikas Adhiniyam, 1979. Rule 14 of the Rules lays down the condition of eligibility for promotion. From perusal of Schedule 1 appended to the Rule it is evident that one post of Executive Engineer and two posts of Assistant Engineer is sanctioned in the set up of respondent No. 1. Schedule 2 of the Rules provides that the post of Executive Engineer shall be filled in by promotion or by deputation. Schedule 4 provides that an Assistant Engineer should have worked on the post of Assistant Engineer for a period of five years in order to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

(3.) After rendering 14 years of service, the appellant on the basis of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, was promoted on ad-hoc basis on the post of Executive Engineer vide order dated 31.12.1996. However, the appellant was reverted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 6.7.1998 with immediate effect. The appellant challenged the validity of the aforesaid order in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by an interim order dated 20.7.1998 stayed the operation of the order of reversion of the appellant. Thereafter, while deciding the petition by an order dated 4.10.2007, the learned Single Judge inter-alia held that appellant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad-hoc basis. He therefore does not have any right to hold the post and, therefore, no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to him before passing the order of reversion. It was further held that the post of Executive Engineer was required to be filled in by a candidate belonging to the reserved category. Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.