NAND KUMAR TOMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs : (i) That, the applicants be given seniority and pecuniary advantages in terms of Annexure P -2 with effect from 12 -2 -1988 accordingly; (ii) That, they be declared as deemed to have been appointed w.e.f. 12 -2 -1988; (iii) That, the 18% interest on the pecuniary advantages be awarded and this application be allowed with costs, (iv) That, any other relief deem fit in the present circumstances of this case be granted.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties, I would like to narrate certain unfolded facts which are as under: - (i) The posts of UDT (Upper Division Teacher) were required to be filled 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion; (ii) post to recruit UDT was advertised and some of the LDTs (Lower Division Teachers) assailed selection process by filing Writ Petition before this Court which was registered as M.P.No. 3816/87; (iii) the present petitioners filed application for intervention; (iv) the Tribunal passed stay order and accordingly promotion order of applicants were not issued; (v) in between on account of establishment of Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal that petition was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as O.A. No. 3350/88; (vi) later on, the petitions which were filed by LDTs including O.A. No. 3350/88 were dismissed; (vii) petitioners also filed O.A. No. 1983/91 which was dismissed because T.A. No. 3350/88 filed by LDTs was dismissed, however, no order on merit was passed by the Tribunal while dismissing the petitioners' original application; (viii) when respondents did not issue appointment letters to petitioners on the post of UDT, they filed Original Application No. 439/92 and the same was allowed on 11 -6 -1992 by observing that no person can be made to suffer by wrong order passed by the Court; (ix) the abovesaid order attained finality; and (x) in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 11 -6 -1992 (O.A. No. 439/92) on 5 -7 -1992 appointment letters were issued to petitioners appointing them from the said date on the post of UDT. The contention of Shri Thakur, Learned Counsel for petitioners is that the appointment letters of petitioners were ready, however, on account of stay order passed by the Tribunal, the same were not issued and the petitioners were not appointed on the post of UDT. The contention is that had there been no stay order, they would have been appointed on the post of UDT on 12 -2 -1988. Thus, the contention of Learned Counsel is that though petitioner No. 1 Nand Kumar Tomar has been appointed on 27 -6 -1992 and petitioner No. 2 Shesadrinath Pandit has been appointed on 9 -7 -1992 and both of them joined on 6 -7 -1992 but their seniority should be given from 12 -2 -1988.

(3.) AFTER having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.