SUDHARANI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for correction of the seniority list (Annexure A -3) by placing the name of petitioner at serial No.127A i.e., above the name of respondent No.5 herein. By way of amendment, it is further prayed that the order Annexure A -9 be set aside with further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Project Officer. Further prayer is made to consider the case of the petitioner on the post of Project Officer prior to respondents No. 5 to 8 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) SHRI Alok Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner and respondents No.5 to 8 were selected and appointed on the post of Panchayat and Social Eduction Organizer on 25.1.1983. The petitioner and private respondents were posted in the same capacity and in the same pay scale as Supervisor, Adult Education. Thereafter, respondents No. 5 to 8, who were junior to the petitioner were transferred to newly bifurcated department known as Women and Child Development Department. The petitioner was later on declared surplus and was transferred to the said department. However, the petitioner was given bottom seniority at the new department of Women and Child Development Department.

(3.) THE aforesaid contention was refuted by Mrs. Pachori, learned Deputy Government Advocate. It is contended that petitioner became surplus in the Adult Education Directorate and surplus Supervisors were absorbed in the Women and Child Development Department. By placing reliance on document Annexure R -1, it is contended that the seniority was given to them w.e.f. the date of their joining in the new department of Women and Child Development Department. She submits that this is in consonance with Rule 12(3)(c) of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.