SATISH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for a command for the respondents to consider their cases of promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer against 11 vacant posts available prior to 13.7.1998.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they were senior and were eligible for consideration for promotion. However, the respondents did not convene the DPC for a considerable long time and in the meantime, certain employees were merged in the present department and they became senior to the petitioners. A DPC was convened at a later point of time and the petitioners' right of consideration was taken away. By taking this Court to various documents and pleadings, Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the posts were lying vacant at the relevant time and, therefore, the respondents ought to have convened DPC to consider the case of the petitioners. He relied on (Y.V. Rangaiah and others vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others, 1983 3 SCC 284) followed in (Kamlesh Kumar Kaurav vs. Chambal Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others, 2003 1 MPHT 52) to submit that old vacancies are to be filled up by the old rules.

(3.) Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate for the State and Shri S.P.Jain, learned counsel for the Board, submit that the posts were not lying vacant. Even if the posts were lying vacant, there was no compulsion for the employer to fill up the posts immediately. It is based on the need of the employer to fill up the posts. The employees have a right of consideration and not a right of promotion under the law.