RATAN DEEP GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS were working as Assistant Grade III in various Janpad Panchayats in Shahdol district. Their cases were considered for promotion by a Selection Committee and they were promoted as Assistant Grade II-cum-Accountants on 14-3-1991. About 10 months thereafter, the second respondent passed an order dated 8-1-1992 directing cancellation of their promotions and reverting them as Assistant Grade III on the ground that the promotions violated Section 68 (1) of the M. P. Panchayat Act, 1990. The said order dated 8-1-1992 was challenged by the appellants in M. P. No. 196/92. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 7-8-2003 dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no infirmity in the said order dated 8-1-1992. The said order is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) SECTION 63 (1) of the M. P. Panchayat Act, 1981 provides that every Panchayat may with the previous approval of the prescribed authority appoint such other officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient discharge of its duties. The said Act was replaced by the M. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1990 which came into effect in August, 1991. Section 68 of the 1990 Act also contains a similar provision. It is not in dispute that as on 14-3-1991 when appellants were promoted, the 1981 Act was in force. Under Section 63 (1) of the Act, the prescribed authority for Janpad Panchayats was the Collector/additional Collector. It is also not in dispute that previous approval of the prescribed authority as required under Section 63 (1) was not obtained for promoting the appellants from Assistant Grade III to Assistant Grade II-cum-Accountants. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found no reason to interfere with the order dated 8-1-1992, directing cancellation of the promotion.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants contended that as the appellants were promoted and working in the higher post, the action of the second respondent reverting them to the post of Assistant Grade III, without affording them a hearing or an opportunity to show cause was invalid as it violated the principles of natural justice.