ASHOK KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, three in number, have called in question the proprietary of the order dated 07.01.1999 said to be issued by respondent No.1 promoting the private respondents No.2 to 7. It is contended by the petitioners that they were working on the post of Work Assistant and they belong to General category. There were certain vacancies available for promotion on the post of Senior Work Assistant but dehors the 100 point roster, all the six posts have been filled in by promotion of reserved category persons. Since the persons like petitioners, who are senior enough, have been denied promotion in such illegal manner by the respondent-University, they have represented the claim before the respondent No.1 but since nothing was done, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that in terms of the instructions issued, a Committee for enquiry was constituted but the report submitted by the said Committee was not given effect to. Though it was resolved to reconstitute the departmental promotion committee for re-consideration of such cases for promotion but again no action was taken. This being so, the order of promotion of the respondents No.2 to 7 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

(2.) Upon service of notice of the writ petition, the respondent No.1 has filed the return and while denying the allegations made by the petitioners, it is contended that a roster has been maintained by the respondent No.1. According to the roster, which was made applicable with effect from 01.08.1995, the vacancies were filled in by promotion of persons like respondents No.2 to 7 in legal manner and the promotion was rightly granted and, thus, it is contended that no interference in the order of promotion was called for. Despite service of notices of the writ petition to respondents No.2 to 7, no return whatsoever has been filed by them.

(3.) By filing a rejoinder it is again reiterated by the petitioners that roster was not to be prepared in the manner it has been prepared by the respondent No.1. It is further pointed out that roster is required to be prepared on the basis of posts and not taking into consideration the entire cadre. It is contended by the petitioners that when there were vacancies of General category available, promotions were not made and such vacancies were in fact treated to be available for promotion of reserved category candidates. Since Senior Work Assistants working were further promoted on the next higher posts, vacancies became available and on such vacancies the roster was to be applied. This has not been done ignoring the circulars of the State Government and ignoring the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994. Hundred percent vacancies were utilized only for the purposes of promotion of reserved category candidates, which in fact is a violation of the Act aforesaid. No additional return has been filed by the respondent No.1.