J C YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and the respondents 2 to 13 on selection in open competition by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission were appointed as Assistant Directors of Industries. The inter se seniority of these persons was maintained according to the order of merit fixed by the Public Service Commission. According to that seniority, the petitioner was senior to respondents 7 to 13. The respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 10 were promoted as Deputy Director of Industries in 1964. The respondent No. 4 was promoted in 1966 and the other respondents in 1970. The petitioner, however, was not promoted and, therefore, he filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the promotion orders of respondents Nos. 5 to 9 and 11 to 13 and for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion after preparing a fresh list of persons eligible for promotion. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Director of Industries from 3rd May 1972 by order dated 26th April 1972. In view of the promotion of the petitioner, the relief claimed by him that he should be considered for promotion after a fresh list of eligible candidates is prepared does not survive. The only relief that now survives and regarding which arguments were heard is the relief for quashing the promotion order of respondents Nos. 5 to 9 and 11 to 13.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents nos. 5 to 9 and 11 to 13 were not entitled for promotion from the posts of Assistant Director to the posts of Deputy Director because they had not passed the departmental examination. It is pointed out that the petitioner passed the departmental examination on 29th April 1966.

(3.) BEFORE appreciating the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to certain statutory rules. Rule 8 of the Madhya pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, provided that a person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall ordinarily be placed on probation, and that he shall undergo such training and pass such departmental examinations during the period of his probation as may be prescribed. Rules relating to the departmental examinations and the syllabus therefor for the officers of the Directorate of Industries were made by notification dated 15th September 1961 and were published in the Government Gazette dated 6th October 1961. It was provided in these rules that every Assistant director etc. whether appointed by direct recruitment or by promotion is required to pass the departmental examination within two years of the date of joining his appointment. It was further provided in rule 4 that failure to pass within two years of joining his appointment will render an officer liable to lose the appointment at the discretion of the Government, and that passing of the departmental examination by the Officers is a condition precedent to their confirmation. It appears to me that the requirement of passing the departmental examination for confirmation as required by the Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, and the Examination Rules referred to above did not apply to the petitioner and the respondents who were appointed Assistant directors in April 1959, because, the period of two years from the date of appointment within which the examination was required to be passed by these rules had already expired before the rules came into force in 1961.