LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-140

PREMLAL BASORE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On July 18, 2022
Premlal Basore Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were initially appointed as peon in the District Court, Satna on 8/1/2010 and 16/11/2000 respectively. Vide order dtd. 25/6/2015, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Grade - III with a condition that they should obtain a certificate of Hindi typing from a recognised Board and one year Computer Diploma from a UGC certified institute, within a period of two years. Since the same was not done, they were reverted to the post of peon by the impugned order dtd. 29/6/2020. Aggrieved by the same, appeals were filed, which were dismissed on 22/10/2021. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.

(2.) Ms.Anjali Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioners contends that the order of reversion is bad in law. She places reliance on the Government notification dtd. 1/4/2003 which is produced as Annexure P/4 to the petition. A reading of the same would indicate that there is an exemption granted to the persons who are aged 45 years or more. That in similar circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this Court, Bench at Indore in Writ Petition No.17864 of 2019 - Mahesh Giri Vs. State of M.P. and other connected petitions, vide judgment dtd. 16/1/2020 has held that the promotion is to be reckoned from the date of attaining the age of 45 years and therefore, reversed the order of reversion. It is pleaded that the benefit granted to the petitioners therein be extended to the petitioners herein also.

(3.) The same is disputed by the learned counsel for respondents. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in the petition. The order of promotion granted to the petitioners is quite clear. It indicates that they should obtain a certificate in Hindi typing and one year Diploma in computer within a period of two years from the date of promotion. The promotion was effected in the year 2015. Therefore the certificates should have been obtained within the year 2017. Having failed to do so, they were not entitled to continue in the promoted posts. Therefore, they have been rightly reverted back to their old position.