RAMVEER SINGH TOMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :

(2.) The State Government has published gradation list showing the position as on 1.4.2005 wherein also the name of petitioners and respondent No. 3 has been specified as per merit of Mini PSC. Because the petitioners found on a better position in merit, however, they were placed over and above to respondent No. 3 in the seniority list so prepared in conformity of rule 12 of the Rules of 1961. The details of the petitioners and respondent No. 3 in the gradation list is reproduced here as under :

(3.) It is urged by Mr. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the seniority so granted to respondent No. 3 who was below in merit in the Mini PSC is not in conformity to the Recruitment Rules, 1987 as well as to the Rules of 1961. To buttress the said contentions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Masood Akhtar Khan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1990 14 ATC 833, Chairman, School of Buddhist Philosophy, Leh, Lakakh (J & K) v. Makhan Lal Mattoo and another, 1990 14 ATC 836, D.N. Agrawal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1990 12 ATC 926, G.C. Pillai and others v. Union of India and others,1990 14 ATC 263, Beer Singh v. Union of India and others,1990 14 ATC 279, Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1990 13 ATC 348, Rameshwar Deuri v. Union of India and others,1990 13 ATC 379. The reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Mahendran Malteesh Y. Annigeri v. State of Karnataka, 1990 AIR(SC) 405 to advance the arguments that the amendment has been made in sub-rule (1)(4) of rule 12 of the Rules of 1961 on 2.4.1998, however, until and unless it is expressly made applicable from the retrospective date, it would be applicable prospectively. In view of forgoing, it is urged that grant of seniority to respondent No. 3 counting his ad hoc service and to place him over and above to the petitioners is not in conformity to the rules as well as the provisions of law, however, orders may be set aside and the gradation list may be corrected accordingly.