JAGENDRA SINGH CHANDEL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decade before the Apex Court in its well known decision Dr. Ms. O. Z Hussain vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 311 has said that the provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiently and makes the service ineffective. The Apex Court further threw sufficient light in the field of Service Jurisprudence that promotion is normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the other officers of a particular department would be deprived of such advantage. This principle was laid down by the Apex Court on the basis that in a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation to the Government to provide promotional avenue to the employees.

(2.) ACCORDING to me, the present case in hand is the best case in which a direction is contemplated to the Government to follow the verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ms. O. Z. Hussain (supra). Ms. Malti Dadariya, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention that the present petitioner is serving on the post of Soil Surveyor in the Department of Agriculture and this post do not have any promotional avenue as per Schedule IV framed under Rule 13 of M.P. Subordinate Agricultural (Non -Gazetted) Executive Service Recruitment Rules, 1971. She has also invited my attention that if a person is given appointment to the post of 'Surveyor' he enjoys the promotional avenue which is shown in Schedule IV but what sin the petitioner has committed if he has been appointed to the post of Soil Surveyor.

(3.) THIS Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non -medical 'A' Group Scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the 'A' category scientists in the non -medical wing of the Directorate.