MOOLCHAND Vs. M P L INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are Clerks, Meter Readers and Nakedar serving as such in the Municipal Corporation of Indore. They had objected to the Promotions granted to respondents 5 to 11. Pending their representations against such promotions, the Standing Committee of the respondent No. 1 the Corporation passed resolutions nos. 147 and 148 on 30-4-1985 and has again appointed the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Sub-Inspector (Non-techn) in supersession of the petitioners' claims. It appears that ad-hoc appointments and promitions is the order of the day, and the petitioners' grievance is against such appointments and prorations, being made in disregard of minimum norms of fairness. The norms of fairness having been breached and promotions made in a manner extremely arbitrary and discriminatory, giving preference to the juniors is thus violating Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Their case is that favoured junior employees ate being promoted by giving them back for entry in the promotional post under the garb of granting them ad hoc or temporary promotions. They also contend that the respondent Corporation or the Standing committee cannot grant such out of turn promotions even on ad-hoc basis, to the detriment and prejudice of the petitioners and many others like them. Principles of equity and fair play have been given a convenient go by in making such promotional , appointments. It is, therefore, prayed that the promotions of respondents 3 to 11 be quashed and a direction be made to the respondent Corporation to make promotions in accordance wi*h bye-laws, or in absence of such bye-laws or rules in accordance with principles of justness, fairness and equity.

(2.) THE respondent No. 4 Kishanlal Koshal has submitted his return while respondent No. 3, has merely replied to the application for ad-Interim writ, but all the necessary material and facts have been placed on record. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their return and the grounds raised therein, have also been adopted by the respondents 5 to 9. They made their appearance at a very late stage when the case had already been posted for judgment, as the in grievance was that they had no notice of the petition they could not file their appearance earlier in this view of the matter, it was for this reason they were also heard although the petition had already been posted for judgment. Both of them, the Authorities promoting and those promoted, have justified the promotions made.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, the Corporation was directed to produce certain documents from their record to clarify the ambiguities loft in the return. Accordingly, the Corporation has also placed the documents on record.