MAHAVIR PRASAD JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was originally filed as Original Application in the M.P. Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal and has been transmitted to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in brief is that he was an excellent sports person. There was a scheme made by the State Government in General Administration Department, wherein it was provided that those excellent sports person, who have represented the State in the National Games or have been declared as excellent sports person by the M.P. Sport Board, were to be appointed on the post of Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School. According to the said scheme the case of the petitioner was considered, recommendation was made for appointment of petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the School Education Department and a memo was sent for his appointment as such on 20.08.1990. However, vide order dated 21.02.1991, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher under the said scheme. The representation was made by the petitioner in this respect, but the same was not being considered, on the other hand when the matter was referred to the respondents by the Director of Public Instructions as back as on 01.03.1995, though similarly situated person was given the benefit, but such a claim of the petitioner was not considered, therefore, the petition was required to be filed.

(3.) TO meet out the allegations made in the return, a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner and it is contended that after receipt of the order of appointment he made the representation on 12.12.1994. The same was sent to the higher authorities with the information that all such excellent sports persons were given the appointment on the post of Lecturer. The recommendations made by the Minister concerned were also referred. The matter remained in consideration before the Minister for a long time. The records were called, but since thereafter nothing was done and as the last correspondence was done on 16.04.1998, the petitioner has rightly approached the Tribunal within time. Even if, there is some delay, the same was liable to be condoned. Nothing has been filed by the respondents hence after indicating that such a stand taken by the petitioner in the rejoinder is incorrect.