GULAB TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that they were granted permission to take part in the departmental promotion examination for promotion on the post of Head Constable (A). They were declared successful in the said examination and their names were listed in the list of successful candidates. However, since the said examination was conducted in the year 2012, the serial number of the petitioners could not reach for grant of appointment on promotion as Head Constable, treating as if the said list has lapsed, further proceedings were initiated for filling the posts, in view of the GOP No.77/97 dated 02.04.1997 and GOP No.81/98 dated 02.04.1998. It is contended that once the process was completed according to the then existing GOP, the petitioners were enlisted for promotion, they could not have been denied the promotion only because subsequently another GOP was issued and that being so, the reliefs are claimed to the effect that the respondents be commanded to promote the petitioners on the post of Head Constable on account of their passing of the examination.

(2.) THIS Court has issued notices to the respondents but no return whatsoever has been filed by them. However, it is contended by learned Govt. Advocate, on the basis of certain pleadings made in the return filed in a similar petition that GOP No. 77/97 was not in force pertaining to promotion when the examination was conducted. The said GOP was superseded by GOP No. 81/98 which was issued on 02.04.1998. The GOP was again issued on 25.01.2005. The examination was conducted on 10.04.2012 and the select list was published. The names of the petitioners were mentioned in the said list. However, before implementation of the said list a new GOP was issued being GOP No. 138/12 on 14.08.2012. This being so, all the appointments by promotion were to be made in terms of the GOP so issued, as all earlier GOPs were superseded by the said GOP. It is contended that in view of this, there was no case made out to grant any relief to the petitioners and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) SINCE the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the directions issued by this Court in the case of Laxminarayan Yadav (supra) and Virendra Singh Rajput (supra), this writ petition is also disposed of in the like manner with the similar directions. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed and the outcome be intimated to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.