MEMBER SECRETARY Vs. BALMIK PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the both sides. The respondent of this appeal, who was the writ petitioner, is an employee of the State Legal Services Authority. He challenged the denial of increment to him merely on the ground that he had not passed typing examination. The learned Single Judge has held in the impugned order allowing the writ petition, that unless the condition, which in this case is passing of the typing examination, is stipulated in the appointment order itself, increment cannot be denied on the ground that the writ petitioner had failed to pass the typing examination. The learned Single Judge has relied on certain decisions which lay down law as above. In the appeal, our attention was invited to Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Vidhik Seva Pradhikaran Niyam, 1996. Sub-rule (2) of the said Rule 11 makes the 'Rules' of the State Government applicable to the employees of the M.P. State Legal Services Authority holding 'equivalent posts'.

(2.) Thus, this Rule 11 would be relevant only if it is shown firstly the post was equivalent and secondly if it is shown that passing of typing examination was a condition precedent for grant of increment under the 'Rules' of the State Govt.

(3.) For certain employees of the State Government, this kind of precondition is contemplated by a 'circular' and not by any 'Rule'. There is clear difference between 'Rules' and 'Circulars'. What has been applied to the employees of the Authority are the 'Rules' and not the 'circulars'. Therefore, we agree with the learned Single Judge that when such a precondition is not mentioned in the appointment order of the writ petitioner, he could not be denied increment on that ground.