SHREERAM NAMDEO Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order-dated 11.8.2006 passed by the Collector, Jabalpur cancelling the order granting change of cadre to the petitioner from the post of Driver to that of Office Assistant Grade III; order-dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Collector, Jabalpur dismissing the review application; and, order-dated 22.2.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Records indicate that petitioner was initially appointed in the revenue department as a driver in the year 1993. Petitioner was a Graduate in Commerce and had passed the Typing Examination. It seems that petitioner submitted an application and sought for change of cadre from the post of Driver to that of Office Assistant Grade III. The matter was examined and vide order-dated 3.2.2005 petitioner was permitted change of cadre. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 Shyam Narayan Choubey, who was working in the Department, filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(S) No.5026/2005 and contended that he is also a driver, a Graduate having passed the Typing Examination and, therefore, like the petitioner he should also be granted change of cadre. Petitioner was impleaded as respondent No.3, in the said petition. After taking note of the grievance of Shyam Narayan Choubey, the said writ petition was disposed of on 22.3.2006 vide order Annexure P/9, and the State Government was directed to examine the claim of the petitioner in the said writ petition Shyam Narayan Choubey, and take action for granting him benefit of change of cadre. It seems that while examining the claim of Shyam Narayan Choubey, it was found that change of cadre is not permissible and as change of cadre granted to the petitioner is contrary to the mandate of the circular and the policy of the State Government, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter the change of cadre cancelled by the impugned order and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Shri K.N. Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention to a circular Annexure P/2 dated 12.6.1980 and submits that in this circular certain provisions are made for permitting change of cadre from the post of Driver to that of Assistant Grade III, on the candidate fulfilling the stipulations contained in the circular. It is stated that petitioner was permitted change of cadre in the year 2005 after his case was examined in detail. That apart, he points out that even if the contention of the State Government that the circular Annexure P/3 dated 3.10.2002 is only applicable for permitting change of cadre in case of a surplus driver, he brings to the notice of this Court cases of more than 10 employees in whose case change of cadre from the post of Driver to that of Assistant Grade III has been granted, and argues that in their cases even though they were not surplus, they have been granted change of cadre and similar benefit is denied to the petitioner. The documents filed by the petitioner are Annexures P/4, P/5, P/6 and P/7 and again Documents 1 to 9, alongwith the application I.A. No.4607/2012. All these documents have been filed to contend that in the case of more than 10-12 employees, similarly situated, even though they were not surplus, change of cadre is permitted and inspite of permitting change of cadre in the case of similarly situated persons who have been working in the revenue department, benefit is not extended to the petitioner.