INDRABHAN GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dtd. 31/1/1996 (Annexure- P-9), whereby, the petitioner has been superseded and the private respondents have been promoted on the post of Deputy Director. The petitioner has also prayed for various other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent- M.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board on 1/8/1978 on the post of District Inspector. Vide order dtd. 27/7/1979, the petitioner was promoted and was appointed as Manager for a period of two years on probation. The respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 30/7/1995, published the seniority list of Managers as on 1/4/1995. The name of the petitioner was at Serial No.15 and the names of respondents No. 6, 7 & 8 are at Serial Nos. 16, 17 and 18. The petitioner had a grievance against his placement in the seniority list and, therefore, he made a representation to the respondents for appropriate correction in the seniority list.

(3.) The respondent-Board is constituted in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1978' for short) and the Board has adopted the Service Rules known as M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1961' for short). It is not disputed at bar that the M.P. Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2002 are also applicable to the officers of the Board. The petitioner stated that in accordance with the Service Rules of the Board, there were 14 posts for the main office and 6 posts for regional offices and in all there were 20 posts of Deputy Director and those posts were 100% promotional from the post of Manager and the experience of 12 years was necessary and the petitioner was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria to be promoted on the post of Deputy Director.