MAYADEVI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGNENT In the return, the respondent stated that the petitioner was holding a gazetted post in the erstwhile State of U.P. and he was also confirmed on that post. After the States re -organization, he could not be posted to a post which did not carry a gazetted status. It is for this reason and also that the petitioner was a senior most person at that time that he had been appointed on the post of Superintendent on which post he remained for about 11 years and 7 months.

(2.) RECRUITMENT rules to the Educational Service relied on by the respondent came into force in 1967. The petitioner had been appointed on promotion as Superintendent and could be reverted either because he was not suitable or non availability of the vacancy on the promoted cadre. It is clear in this case that the petitioner's suitability on the promoted post has not been judged and there is nothing against him. The respondent's sole contention, that the substantive rank of the 8 promoted persons is higher than that of the petitioner and, therefore, they have better claim to the post, is devoid of any merit. This argument is fallacious because it ignores, the petitioners' continuous service in the promoted Cadre for 11 years. The petitioner had been promoted to the post of Superintendent temporarily. He being a permanent servant the promotion was not on adhoc basis. Rule 9 of the M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 bears out this position. Besides, it would be seen that he was promoted because he was a gazetted officer, while at the time of promotion he was the senior most person and other persons holding class III services did not have the gazetted status. The 8 persons promoted to the post of Superintendent vide order dated 20 -12 -73 (Annexure -C) were neither senior to him nor holding a gazetted post. The post of Superintendent has only been filled by promotion and not by direct recruitment. Under such circumstances, rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 would be attracted and he would have a right to hold the post in terms of rule 14. The departmental promotion committee did not consider his case at all. He has not been found to be unsuitable to the post. The only ground for not continuing him on the post of Superintendent was that his earlier post was not in the channel of promotion. It would be further seen that the recruitment rules, which created a channel of promotion, were framed subsequently and if by these rules, the channel of promotion happens to be one, which did not enable T. N. Dube to remain on that post, he could not be deprived of the right to hold the post in terms of rule 14 without giving him an opportunity of showing cause. The reversion visited him with evil consequences and it would be necessary that he must have been given a show cause notice prior to such reversion. I am of the view that in the present circumstances of the case, rule 14 was clearly violated and the order reverting him ought to be quashed. Petition allowed.