DAULATRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution prays for a Writ of Mandamus against the respondents to revise the seniority list and also to quash the orders, Annexures, II, XII, XII-V, VI and XXXVI to the petition.

(2.) This is the petitioner's second attempt. Earlier he along with three others had filed M. P. No. 187/77 before this Court and by order dated 4-9-1981, this Court made the following directions :

(3.) The petitioner is working in the Social Welfare Department of the respondent State in Class II service. He was originally appointed as Social Education Organiser in the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat, which was a Class II post. At the time of reorganisation of States, i.e., 1-11-1956, the petitioner was working on the said post in the grade of 100-8-180-10-220. As result of reorganisation of States integration of services followed in almost all the departments and the Social Welfare department was not an exception thereto and the petitioner was absorbed in the said department. Various orders fixing the seniority of employees under different cadres were passed and these orders have been listed by the petitioner in para 6 of the petition. In view of these orders, the General Administration department vide order dated 12-1-1964 fixed 1-4-1964 as the date for the purposes of preparation and finalisation of seniority lists and it was also directed that the lists thus prepared would be revised every year in the month of April. But the Social Welfare Department lagged behind in preparing such list, which could be prepared and final' sed only on 18-6-1981, showing the position of employees of the department as it stood on 1-4-1976; whereas it ought to have been completed at any rate by 1-4-1964, showing the position of each of the employees as it stood on 1-11-1956, the date on which the new State of Madhya Pradesh came into being. This list has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-II. A provisional seniority list was also prepared by the department. The petitioner's date of joining the service was shown as 7-1-1954, while that of J. C. Sharma and G.B. Verma (respondents 4 and 5) was shown as 10-2-1954. Thus, indisputably the petitioner was senior in service to these respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner's grievance is that these respondents were treated as District Panchayat and Welfare Officers with effect from 1-11-1956 and this possibly is the reason of omission of their names from the list published on 18-6-1981 (Annexure-II). The petitioner contends that the promotion and confirmation of these respondents was in utter disregard of the M- P. Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960, and is in breach of the directions issued by the department for the purpose of integration of services. He contends that without finalisation of the seniority list, which was provisionally prepared and published on 8-5-1972 (Annexure-IV), respondents 4 and 5 could not have been promoted and confirmed and given Class I post of Deputy Director on ad hoc basis, where they are still said to be working.