SURYA PRAKASH PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 29.4.2013 passed by the Collector in Case No.38/2012 -13/Appeal. By this order, the promotion order of the petitioner was set aside and matter was remitted back to the Municipal Council to reconsider the matter in accordance with rules.

(2.) ASSAILING this order, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.4 herein were admittedly appointed by the same order and on the same day. They joined services as Shiksha Karmi Grade -II on the same day. Thereafter they were absorbed as Adhyapak. A seniority list (Annexure P/5) showing position as on 1.4.2011 was prepared, wherein the petitioner is shown at No.3 and respondent No.4 is at No.5. It is urged that this seniority list was not challenged by anybody at any point of time and, therefore, it has attained finality. The petitioner's case was considered for promotion on the post of Senior Teacher and he was promoted by order dated 4.1.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner's subject is English whereas respondent No.4 belongs to the subject of Sanskrit and, therefore, she has no right on a post which is occupied by petitioner in the stream of English. In addition, it is contended that as per the appeal, preferred by respondent No.4 (Annexure P/7) the singular ground canvassed was that she is senior by age and, therefore, she should secure a march in the matter of seniority over and above the petitioner. By drawing attention on the Circular dated 16.8.2009 (Page 43), it is contended that the seniority in teacher's cadre is to be counted as per the appointment order and merit position/selection position mentioned in the appointment order.

(3.) REVERTING back to the order dated 7.9.1992, it is contended that the petitioner's name is at No.5 and name of respondent No.4 is at No.8 and, therefore, the petitioner was rightly held senior. It is contended that the DPC which was constituted in the case of the petitioner was strictly in consonance with Schedule IV of the Gazette Notification dated 17.9.2008 (Annexure R -4/4). It is submitted that the Collector without assigning any reason has disturbed the promotion order, which is bad in law.