BHUPENDRA SINGH KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 25/7/2024 issued by respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the select list for promotion/conferral of charge of higher post of Head Constable (Driver) by not deleting the name of respondent No.5 stood already promoted on the post of Head Constable (GD) before issuance of the impugned order.

(2.) Facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable (MT) on 8/5/2002 and was absorbed on the aforesaid post on 16/12/2005. In the fit list of Constable (MT/ Driver) for the year 2021 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure P/1), the name of the petitioner finds place at Sr. No. 51 and name of Respondent No. 5 at Sr. No. 45. Similarly, in the fit list of the year 2024 issued vide order dtd. 8/6/2024 (Annexure P/2) names of 15 Constable : (MT/Driver) were included including the name of Respondent No. - 5 whose name finds place at Sr. No. 10. It is pertinent to note that before inclusion of name of respondent No. 5 in the aforesaid fit list dtd. 8/6/2024 {supra), the name of Respondent No. 5 was already included in the fit list of Constable (GD) issued vide covering letter dtd. 7/6/2024 (Annexure P/3) by the Respondent No. 4 after approval from Respondent No. 3 wherein name of Respondent No. 5 appears at Sr. No. 1. That, upon issuance of the fit list 8/6/2024 (supra) which erroneously included the name of Respondent No. 5, the petitioner submitted a representation dtd. 10/6/2024 (Annexure P/4) to Respondent No. 3 which was forwarded by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3 by covering letter dtd. 11/6/2024 (Annexure P/5). That, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, despite the fact that vide order dtd. 11/6/2024 (Annexure P/6), Respondent No. 5 was already promoted/conferred with the charge of post of Head Constable (GD), the Respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order dtd. 18/7/2024 (Annexure P/7) again promoting/conferring the charge of post of Head Constable (Driver/MT) to the Respondent No. 5, vide Sr. No. 10 but has not considered the name of the petitioner who was next to be conferred with the charge of higher post of Head Constable (Driver/MT). That, to the further utter surprise of the petitioner, by the impugned order dtd. 25/7/2024 (Annexure P/8) Respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the inclusion of the name of the petitioner shall not be in accordance with law. Thus, being aggrieved by the injustice done to him the present petition is filed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner argued that as per GOP dtd. 10/2/2021 issued by the PHQ clause-6 clearly provides that any officer who has been included in the list of elegible candidates for officiating charge refused to accept the charge or did not join on the higher post within the time limit prescribed, his name can be deleted from the list of eligible candidates for officiating charge and the elegible candidates included in the list shall be given the charge. He argued that name of respondent No.5 who was already promoted to the post of Head Constable (GD) prior to issuance of list of eligible candidates was wrongly included in the list. He argued that list of eligible candidates was prepared for 15 candidates and if the name of respondent No.5 was deleted, the petitioner who was at S.No. 16 ought to have been considered for promotion/conferral of the charge of higher post as officiating.