HARI NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed as O.A. No. 173/1999 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and came on transfer to this Court after closure of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was working on the post of Constable (Trade-Welder) in the Motor Transport Workshop of Police Department at Rewa, he took part in the trade training for the purposes of his inclusion in the fit list for promotion on the post of Head Constable. On successfully passing the said training, the name of the petitioner was brought in the fit list for promotion. It appears that owing to want of vacancies, the petitioner was not promoted. However, in terms of the GOP, which was in vogue at the relevant time, petitioner was not required to appear in the trade test once again for his inclusion in the select list. The DPC if was convened, the name of the petitioner was not considered. In the year 1997 the petitioner could know that certain juniors to him have been given the placement in the fit list and they have been promoted, therefore, he made representation before the authorities. The said representation was not being considered, therefore, he was required to approach the Tribunal. It is contended that since in the year 1995 the GOP was further amended and it was provided that those who have earlier passed the trade test and have been brought in the fit list, if have not been promoted, they were required to take part in the trade test once again for reconsideration of their case for bringing them in the fit list afresh. It was said in the said GOP that the validity of the fit list was 18 months only or till the promotions are made, which ever is earlier. If the petitioner was required to take part in the trade test, he should have been informed about such fact so that he could have taken part in the said test once again. Thus, it is contended that in fact the petitioner was denied the lawful claim in illegal and arbitrary manner and juniors to him have been promoted, therefore, action on the part of the respondents is bad in law. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:

(2.) On receipt of the notice of the original application, the respondents have filed their return and have refuted the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that in fact the GOP No. 56/1993 was issued on 20-10-1993 wherein it was provided that if a Constable has passed the trade test, he would not be required to pass the said test once again for bringing his name in the fit list. However, the said GOP was amended vide order dated 25-2-1995 and it was specifically provided that those who have been brought in the fit list on account of passing of the trade test, but have not been promoted on the promotional post for want of vacancy, will require to take part in the trade test once again if the fit list prepared has lost its validity on expiry of 18 months period. The petitioner was required to take part in the trade test after the expiry of the fit list prepared in the year 1991. He did not participate in the said test and, therefore, his name was not brought in the fit list. The petitioner since has not passed the training as was required, his representation was rejected by the D.I.G., SAF, Jabalpur on 22-9-1999. As far as the others are concerned, it was contended that those persons have passed the trade test and their names were brought in the fit list of the trade in which the petitioner was also working. All these persons have been promoted in accordance to their seniority and placement in the fit list. Thus, it is contended that no illegality whatsoever is committed in passing the order in respect of the other respondents. It is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner controverting such statements and stating that if the DPC had met prior to 25-2-1995, in terms of the unamended GOP of the year 1993, the petitioner was not required to take part in the trade test once again for inclusion of his name in the fit list. Once he was already brought in the fit list and if any fit list was prepared after expiry of the fit list in which the name of the petitioner was included, without even passing the trade test, the name of the petitioner was required to be included in the said fit list. Had it been done, the petitioner would have been promoted when the juniors to him were promoted. It is further contended that in the year 1997 the select list was issued on the basis of consideration done in the year 1995 and in the said DPC the claims of two juniors to the petitioner were considered and they were promoted subsequently by the order referred to herein above. It is contended that both the juniors belongs to reserved category and as only two vacancies were there in the trade concerned, in fact the policy of reservation was violated and 100% reservation was given by promotion of reserved category candidates. To these submissions of the petitioner, an additional return has been filed but again nothing much is said except making allegations against the petitioner saying that he was placed under suspension because he ran away from the training and absconded for a period of 99 days. Again he was suspended because of misconduct and that being the conduct of the petitioner, he was not entitled to grant of promotion. The petitioner has filed an additional rejoinder placing on record certain orders passed by the concerned authority with respect to suspension of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was harassed by the Deputy Commandant of SAF, who was after the petitioner because of certain personal reasons. It is pointed out that both the suspension orders were set aside by the higher authorities saying that they were not legally issued in accordance to the provisions of the law. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner was deliberately denied the promotion and as such was entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.