ASHOK KUMAR CHOUKSEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioners, who are all working as Laboratory Attendant, have come before this Court ventilating their grievances with respect to the order dated 23 rd August, 2004, by which their claim for upgradation as Laboratory Technician and Laboratory Assistant has been rejected. It is contended by the petitioners that all the petitioners are identically placed to those persons, who have filed a writ petition before this Court, which was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No.1237/1988 (Nand Kishore & others Vs. State of M.P. & others). It is contended by the petitioners that their claim is identically placed, the relief was already granted by the Tribunal, which was extended to the persons like petitioners herein as the S.L.P. filed before the Apex Court was rejected. When the claim was made by the petitioners that since the issue has already been put at rest, similar benefit be granted to the persons like petitioners, the order impugned was issued saying that the petitioners are not identically placed and, therefore, are not entitled to grant of similar benefit and their claims have been rejected. Therefore, they are required to approach this Court by way of filing present writ petition. It is contended that though the claim of the petitioners was considered in the light of the law laid-down by the Tribunal and in some of the original applications, which were filed claiming the similar benefit and an order was prepared to grant the benefit of promotion to the petitioners with retrospective effect but since this order was not implemented, representation made by the petitioners was rejected, they were required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

(2.) In brief, the claim made by the petitioners is that there are statutory provisions made for recruitment in the nonexecutive posts. Such recruitment rules are known as Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class-III Services (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 1974 (herein after referred to as 'Rules'). Earlier there were sanctioned posts of Laboratory Assistant, which were to be filled in only be direct recruitment. Subsequently, the amendment in the rules was made and it was prescribed that 50% posts of Laboratory Assistant were to be filled in by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. The Laboratory Attendants having the qualification were entitled to be considered for promotion on putting in 5 years service. A further amendment in the rules was made sometime in the year 1991 and it was said that the Laboratory Attendants having qualification for appointment on the post of Laboratory Technician only would be promoted. The claim was made in the Tribunal that such prescription of the qualification was only prospective as the amendment was prospective and it was not retrospective. Since there was a quota prescribed for promotion of Laboratory Attendants, the persons who were working in Class-IV services on the post of Laboratory Attendant, should have been promoted as Laboratory Assistant. It will not be out of place to mention here that later on nomenclature of the post of Laboratory Assistant was changed to Laboratory Technician. The Tribunal reached to the conclusion that if some of the persons were promoted in between when there was no prescription of such qualification, even when they were having no such qualification, the persons before the Tribunal were also entitled to the similar benefit. The petitioners also contended that they were also appointed in the similar manner prior to the coming into force of the amendment made in the year 1991 and, therefore, their service conditions would remain the same as were available on the date when they were recruited. They will also be entitled to grant of benefit of promotion on the post of Laboratory Technician on completion of requisite years of service. This consideration was done but instead of issuing the orders, though vacancies were there, the representation of the petitioners was rejected and as such the order impugned is bad in law.

(3.) The respondents have come with the stand that such a claim made by the petitioners is wholly misconceived. According to the respondents, since the petitioners were having no qualification, as is necessary, they cannot be said to be identically placed. It is contended that when the vacancies became available, the recruitment rules were already amended and in terms of the amendment made in the rules, the petitioners were to be considered. Nothing is to be granted to the petitioners violating the statutory service rules. Thus, it is contended that the persons like petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed and their petition is liable to be dismissed.