STATE OF M.P. Vs. G.P. BHARGAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CALLING in question the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.1.2009, passed in Writ Petition(S) No.2349/2004, this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed. It is contended that findings recorded by the learned Single Judge were not correct in view of the fact that specific provisions were made for making recruitment on the post which were sanctioned after establishing a new directorate of Women and Child Development, inasmuch as, the recruitment rules were not framed for the said directorate at the relevant time and, therefore, the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for brevity) would be applicable in making selection. It is contended that specific instructions were given by the State Government on 21.8.1986 for screening of the cases of those who were desirous of coming on deputation to serve in the new directorate and, as such, the respondent No.1 was taken on deputation only for her posting as District Women and Child Development Officer. It is contended that in view of this if the services of the respondent No.1 were repatriated by the department, no interference whatsoever was required to be done in the said order and, in fact, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was thus contrary to the provisions of law. The order impugned is, thus, liable to be set aside.

(2.) IT is briefly contended by learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of appellants that the State Government took a decision to bifurcate the projects of Women and Child Development which were being run by the Panchayat and Social Justice Department at the relevant time and to carve out a new directorate of Women and Child Development. For the purposes of mann the posts which were sanctioned in the said new directorate, the State Government decided to take certain persons on deputation. For the said purposes, the instructions were issued, the cases were screened and after selection, the order was passed taking such persons on deputation. However, at a later sage, the State Government directed to repatriate the services of those persons who were taken on deputation and, accordingly, the order was issued in respect of the respondent No.1. The said order was called in the writ petition. After filing of the reply, placing on record all the relevant documents, it was pointed out by the appellants that the respondent No.1 was never treated as a person appointed on the post. On the other hand, she was only a deputanist and, therefore, was rightly repatriated to her parent department. It is contended that this fact was also admitted by the respondent No.1 by making a correspondence at the initial stage that she was only working on deputation and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that the respondent No.1 was in fact appointed on the post and was not on deputation. As such, it is contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

(3.) AFTER due consideration of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the order impugned in this writ appeal. Firstly, it has to be seen whether the respondent No.1 was put for selection or not for her appointment on the post of District Women and Child Development Officer. From the documents placed on record which have not been disputed at all, it is clear that the selection of the respondent No.1 was done by the High Power Committee constituted by the State Government for the purposes of appointment of selection of candidates for their appointment on the post of District Women and Child Development Officer. It is not demonstrated by the appellants that even after sanctioning of the post, the same was put within the purview of the functions of the M.P. Public Service Commission so as to consultation of the Public Service Commission would be necessary for granting appointment to such selected candidates. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time when the selection was commenced, the statutory Service Rules were not made for recruitment in the new directorate of Women and Child Development. Unless the posts were classified to be one within the purview of M.P. Public Service Commission, consultation of the Public Service Commission before making appointment was not necessary. Even otherwise, the power of relaxing the aforesaid provision of consultation of Public Service Commission was with the State Government and looking to the emergent requirement of officers to mann the post in the new directorate if such relaxation was granted, the selection was done, it could not be said that the selection of the respondent No.1 for appointment on the post of District Women and Child Development Officer was not in accordance to the Rules. Had it been so, the appellants should have taken the steps to rectify such a mistake at the relevant time. Instead of doing this, action was taken treating the respondent No.1 on deputation, for her repatriation to a department where she was having no lien, at the fag end of her service. Such an action of the appellants- State, thus, cannot be said to be correct one.