MADHUKANT TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also govern the disposal of W.P. No. 8516/2009 and W.P. No. 18109/2011. Since the petitions are directed against the same cause though by different petitioners, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the purposes of this order, facts as have been mentioned in Writ Petition No. 5588/2009 are taken. The petitioners who were working as Deputy Superintendent of Jail have approached this Court, ventilating their grievance with respect to the selection and appointment of respondents No. 3 to 7 on the post of Superintendent District Jail, contending inter alia that such a promotion was de hors the Rules i.e. M.P. Jail Services (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for brevity). It is contended that since amendment was made in the Rules only on 25-10-2008, the said amendment would be prospective in nature and, accordingly, all the vacancies are to be filled in by such a method as prescribed. It is contended that since the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the DPC for brevity) meeting was convened after making of the amendment in the Rules, vacancies we to be filled in only by means as indicated in the amended provisions of the Rules and not otherwise. Since the DPC meeting was held on 25-6-2009, there was no question of considering the claim of persons like respondents No. to 7 for promotion on the post of Superintendent District Jail as they were not to be given the said benefit. By bifurcating the quota of promotion since limited posts were available, only such number of persons who were within the quota of said cadre of Senior Probation and Welfare Officer, were to be promoted. However, de hors the Rules, since the respondents No. 3 to 7 have been promoted acceding their quota, the order of promotion of respondents No. 3 to 7 is bad in law. It is contended that since the quota which was earlier prescribed, was 20% for Senior Probation and Welfare Officer to be promoted on the post of Superintendent District Jail, which now by way of amendment has been reduced to 10% only such number of persons could have been promoted, but since senior persons like petitioners have been ignored and the persons who were not to be promoted, have been promoted, the order of promotion issued in respect of respondents No. 3 to 7, is bad in law.

(2.) Elaborating the contentions, the petitioners have contended that there were only 22 posts of Superintendent District Jail including the post of Superintendent Juvenile Institution Narsinghpur and Principal Jail Training. Out of these 22 posts, 40% posts were to be filled in by direct recruitment as per Schedule-II of the Rules. 60% posts were to be filled in by promotion, out of which 40% posts were to be filled in by promotion of Jailor and 20% posts were to be filled in by Senior Probation and Welfare Officer. By a Gazette Notification dated 25-10-2008, an amendment was made in the Rules. The entries made with respect to total sanctioned posts was changed. Total 23 posts were said to be sanctioned including the Superintendent District Jail, Principal Jail Training Centre, Administrative Officer Regional Jail Management and Research Centre. The bifurcation of the quota of promotion of 60% posts was amended and 50% posts were to be filled in by promotion of Jailor cadre officer and 10% posts were to be filled in from the cadre of Senior Probation and Welfare Officer. The persons like petitioner were appointed long back in the Jailor cadre. They were working on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail and were eligible to be considered for promotion in terms of Schedule-TV of the Rules. However, instead of considering the claim of petitioners when the DPC meeting was held in the year 2009, the Senior Probation and Welfare Officer were promoted by the impugned order. This being so, challenging such action, the writ petition is required to be filed. It is pointed out that on 3-9-2005, persons like respondents No. 3 to 7 were promoted from the post of Probation and Welfare Officer to the post of Senior Probation and Welfare Officer and just within no time they were made to work against the post of Superintendent District Jail vide order dated 17-11-2005. This is how the persons like respondents No. 3 to 7 were favoured superseding the claim of persons like petitioners who were senior enough to be promoted on the post of Superintendent District Jail. Thus, it is contended that since the entire action was bad in law when a representation was made, nothing was done, ultimately, the writ petition was required to be filed.

(3.) Upon service of the notices of the writ petition, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their return. It is contended by the respondents that the respondents No. 3 to 7 belonging to Probation and Welfare Officer were rightly promoted on the post of Senior Probation and Welfare Officer. The vacancy occurred in their quota for filling in the post of Superintendent District Jail. Looking to the amendment made in the Rules, since the vacancies have occurred prior to coming into force of the amended provision of the Rules, the same was considered and filled in, in accordance to the Rules as stood before the amendment. This being so, the right seniority was taken into consideration and promotion of the persons like respondents No. 3 to 7 was done. One of the candidate was considered and promoted in accordance to the provisions made in the Rules and rest of the persons have been promoted in their quota, therefore, there is no wrong committed by the respondents in promoting such officers. The petition being devoid of any substance, deserves to be dismissed.