VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra court appeal, has been preferred by appellants, against Order dated 9.2.2004, passed by learned Single Judge in appellants' Writ Petition No. 5835/2003, which has since been dismissed. Learned counsel for appellants has strenuously submitted that facts and law involved in appellants' Writ Petition have not at all been considered in proper perspective by learned Single Judge and yet on some straneous consideration which did not borne out from record and were neither submitted by any of the parties, yet their petition has been dismissed. In the light of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, we have heard learned counsel for appellants on merits of their Writ Petition which was preferred and dismissed by learned Single Judge. Factual matrix is short is as under : Present appellants were appointed/promoted to the posts of Supervisor in the Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare of State of Madhya Pradesh. After some time, their services stood transferred to School Education Department, which, according to them, was done without consent and affording any opportunity of hearing. Supervisors whose services were so transferred to School Education Department along with other staff, were declared as surplus by State Government. However, with an intention to provide adequate jobs to appellants, they were absorbed on the posts of Upper Division Teacher (Non-executive post). It was this order passed by State Government on 6.6.1998, which was subject matter of challenge initially before M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, by appellants along with 16 others appellants, who have not preferred to file appeal even though they were parties before learned Single Judge. Main thrust of argument of learned counsel for appellants was that appellants should have been absorbed on Class III Executive Post such as Gramodhyog Vistar Adhikari, Co-operative Inspectors, Food Inspectors, Panchayat and Social Education Organisers with equivalent pay scale. According to them, the posts were vacant and available wherein present appellants could have been accommodated, but not having done so, respondents have committed a grave illegality against them.

(2.) RESPONDENTS herein had submitted their reply before the Tribunal opposing prayer and grant of relief, as claimed by them and submitted that there existed no vacant posts in executive cadre and since appellants were already declared as surplus, they had to be absorbed in some Department, thus, they were appointed as Upper Division Teachers. On such reply being filed, present appellants submitted their rejoinder to which further reply was submitted by respondents. However, before the Original Application, filed by appellants, could be decided by the Tribunal, on abolition of the same by orders passed by the State Government, all the matters stood transferred to the High Court and were registered as Writ Petitions. That is how the matter was heard by learned Single Judge.

(3.) AT the fag end of arguments, it was submitted by learned counsel for appellants that out of total original 16 petitioners who were before learned Single Judge, even after dismissal of petition, 13 have been absorbed on the posts of executive, but present three appellants only have been left out without assigning any cogent and valid reasons. However, we find no material to place reliance on averments made by appellants. Thus, at this stage, it is neither desirable nor possible to deal with this issue. But, appellants would certainly be at liberty to approach the respondents to accommodate them also, if other 13 have been accommodated and if any further vacant posts in executive cadre exists. Appeal being devoid of any merit and substance is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.