VISHNU Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is serving as a Labour Inspector, claims promotion to the post of Assistant Labour Officer, by quashing the order dated 26.5.1984 (Annexure-I), passed by the respondent No. 2, promoting respondents 3 and 4 to the post of Asstt. Labour Officer.

(2.) The petitioners grievance is that he was ' found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, the D.P.C.), constituted in accordance with the rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution and known as Madhya Pradesh Labour Services (Class III-Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules). Respondents 3 and 4 were initially promoted on an ad hoc basis, vide order dated 15.11.1983 and they were subsequently promoted in regular grade/pay-scale of Assistant Labour Officer, by order No. 456/84, dated 26.5.1984 (Annexure-I), which has been challenged in this petition.

(3.) On 16.11.1983 when the respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as Asstt. Labour Officer on ad hoc basis, the petitioner protested against such appointments and submitted a representation on 22.12.1983 (Annexure-H). Thereafter as many as five posts of Asstt. Labour Officers fell vacant and a D.P.C. was constituted by the respondent No. 2 in the year 1984 for selection of suitable candidates for the posts. The D.P.C., after undergoing all the procedural formalities prepared a list of selected candidates and forwarded the same to the respondent No. 2 along with the entire record pertaining to the selection. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 in the said list. This list, however, so far as the petitioner is concerned, was not acceptable to the respondent No. 2, who by his note-sheet dated 15.3.1985, which has been produced on direction from this Court, referred back the petitioners name along with one M.P. Tiwari to be deleted from the list of selected candidates and also made a direction that in case the Committee desired to submit any comments, the same be made within a week. The Committee met again on 26.3.1984 and reiterated that on consideration of the noting by respondent 2, they could not find any reason to make any change in the select list. Thus, the petitioners selection stood doubly assured.