CP. BHENGADE Vs. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF MP.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition praying for reconsideration of her case for promotion to the post of Section Officer. The petitioner's case is that she had been initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 8.8.1959, thereafter, she was promoted as Upper Division Clerk vide order dated 3.5.1972 and was subsquently promoted as Assistant vide order dated 25.8.1980. Vide order dated 19.12.1991, she had been promoted as Head Translator. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 5/6th November, 1992 for making promotion on the post of Section Officer. Six assistants and two translators were promoted as Section Officers vide order dated 19.12.1992. The petitioner's case was, however, rejected on the ground that she had very small tenure on the post of Head Translator and therefore, her suitability for conferring higher responsibility to the post of Section Officer could not be adjudged. The petitioner contends that her case should have been considered for promotion as an Assistant if not as a Head Translator for promotion on the post of Section Officer alongwith her juniors who have infact superseded her. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's case was considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee but because of a very short period of service on the post of Head Translator, it was not possible to adjudge her suitability or otherwise for promotion to the post of Section Officer and, therefore, she was not recommended for promotion. The rule position existing prior to coming into force of M.P. Officers and Employees Recruitment Conditions of Service (Classification Control Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 1996 has been placed before this Court. It has been stated that vide memorandum dated 14.5.1963, one post of Translator was converted into that of Head Translator having the same scale of pay but with a special pay of Rs. 75/- per month. It has also been pointed out that vide notification dated 25.10.1982 Rules 16, of the rules framed in exercise of powers under sub-section 4 of section 242 read with paragraph B of section 242 of the Government of India Act, 1935 which came into force with 1st April, 1937, was amended and it was provided that promotions to the post of Section Officers, Assistant Editor (1LR) Examiner, Head Translator, Librarian and Stamp Reporter would be made on the basis of merit cum seniority while promotion to the post of Assistant, Translator and Upper Division Clerk is on the basis of seniority cum merit. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that for promotion on the post of Section Officers all the Assistants, Translators, Head Translators, Stamp Reporters and Librarians were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioner was one of the senior most Assistants and that is why she was promoted as Head Translator. On this basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as Translators, Assistant, Head Translators and others all were placed on same footing, her services as Assistant should have been considered if it was felt that the period of services rendered by her on the post of Head Translator was very short for the purpose of assessing her suitability. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 1 while rejecting her representation has not adverted to this aspect of the case as is admitted and apparent from the return which has been placed on record.