PARAMANAND SAXENA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR a single and singular reason, arguments in this case, though' heard at short length, are found impressive. The message of Royappa (AIR 1974 SC 555), better said in G. P. Dayal (AIR 1984 SC 1527), has startling and sterling relevance in the instant case, though countervailing facts are equally grave and serious. It is this Court's duty, nevertheless, to strike a balance between equities and render equities equal and meaningful, making service Jurisprudence conformable to the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 39-A of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner's grievance is very short, though he has spread his net wide. By this Court order, moving in only a short compass, I would like to take care of his grievance as far it is permissible to do in facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view other equitable considerations which weigh in favour of the respondents. The petitioner is an Officer in the Office of the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, gwalior and he stakes his claim to promotion to a different cadre - in the cadre of indian Audit and Accounts Service, Class I. His case was considered and indeed, by the Departmental Promotion Committee under the auspices of the Union Public service Commission, on 14-6-1984, but he lost his chance. The consideration, according to the petitioner, is vitiated.

(3.) THE instant lis has an interesting backdrop, which is not fully pictured in the minutes of the Committee, placed today by Mr. Mittal for my consideration. These minutes were called at petitioner's request and he had also the opportunity to satisfy himself as to how his case was considered by the Committee albeit only for the years 1982 and 1983 and not for 1980 and 1981. Mr. Mittal has stated few facts, not disputed either, but important yet. In 1981, a matter had come up in the Kerala High Court, wherein another petitioner had agitated a similar grievance. Until December, 1983, during the currency of the stay order passed by the Kerala High Court, nothing happened and promotional prospect of all candidates remained suspended. There was a petition by another petitioner similarly agitating his grievance, which was heard by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Annexure P/1 to the petition is the judgment rendered therein on 20-12-1983 (See, 1984 SLJ 437 Rajinder Gandhi vs. Union of India ). The Union of India, was the main respondent in that case and it was required by the Court, allowing the petition to carry out certain directions. At para 6 of the judgment, to which my attention is drawn, the operative part of the order is to be found. The Court referred and relied on the decision in Y. V. Rangiah (AIR 1983 SC 852) in making the direction. All cases of which consideration had been stalled were required to be taken up albeit on the basis of the rules and instructions existing prior to the enforcement of the new rules - The Indian Audit and Accounts Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1983. The vacancies had to be filled up within a period of six months after completing the process of selection and appointment.