MADANKUMAR GAUTAM UJJAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition highlights a prevalent trend in administrative hierarchy of making ad hoc appointments and promotions, thereby causing clamour and rancour amongst employees, who feel wronged by such ad hoc appointments and promotions and also feel deprived of their legitimate rights of being promoted, more after than not the spirit of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is marauded in the name of ad hoc appointments. If the spirit of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution is to have its say and play and a meaningful purpose in matters of public employment, the sooner the respondent State realises that ad hoc promotions have also got to be regulated by certain well-settled norms and principles uniformally applied without any discrimination and not as largesse conferred on the chosen few, better it is for the State as well as the employees.

(2.) THE other aspect which arrests attention is the adverse entries made in the character roll of a Government servant, which ought to be made with all seriousness and representations submitted against them are attended with promptness. The directions issued in this behalf are to be rigidly followed. The General Administrative Department as back as in 1977 by its Circular No. D/372-1037/1/377 dated 8-9-1977 provided for a scheme of timings, which enjoins upon the authority concerned to dispose of the representations within three months from the date of receipt thereof. In the instant case the petitioner having submitted his representation on 19-8-1974 against an adverse entry for the year ending 31st March, 1974, which was communicated to the petitioner, the representation which as per instructions should have been disposed of within three months, i. e. by 19th November, 1974, in spite of repeated reminders, could not be disposed of by the authorities and the height of the crude absurdity is reached when the respondents in their return dated 4-9-1981 stated that 'the petitioner would be informed of the decision on the representation shortly'. It is a travesty that the period indicated as 'shortly' has not yet completed in spite of a lapse of almost 31/2 years. It is this adverse entry, which has resulted in deprivation and denial of the petitioner's claim to be promoted. The role these adverse entries play and the devastating effect on the service career is prominently pronounced by the return itself. Where such entries are taken into consideration, it is imperative need that the administrative circulars are not merely issued but are also followed in the administration. Ten years have rolled by but the petitioner's representation against the adverse entry for the year ending 1974 could not be disposed of. The grave injustice, which is at times caused by such adverse entries can and should not be overlooked. The present petition is an example of the ad hocism prevailing in the administrative hierarchy as also the ruinous delay caused in disposing of the representations which not merely mars the efficiency of the officers concerned but also adversely affect their morale.

(3.) BY this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is at present a Tahsildar, seeks promotion to the post of Deputy collector and fixation of his seniority in that cadre and also challenges certain orders being Annexures C, E, F, O, B, P, R, S, T, T-1 and T-2.