ATAL BEHARILAL SHANKARLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short grievance of the petitioner is duly qualified for redressal indeed by bizarre facts which I read in the return of the respondents. The fact which is not denied and indeed cannot be denied is that since the year 1965, as per Annexure P-4, petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Director, Agriculture Department, government of Madhya Pradesh. Since then, many others have come and gone and changed chairs, but he is sitting in the same chair. Others have even changed rooms, and have moved higher up, because they were patronised and were given walk-over to deny the petitioner his right for promotion for the last 20 years.

(2.) THE facts are startlingly vocal and culpably interesting, leaving nothing for the respondents to defend. Indeed, I read in the return of the respondents admissions, which are Crucially startling and significant. In the first paragraph itself of the return what is said is that "employees promoted prior to the publication of the departmental recruitment rules were treated as Ad hoc promotees and their cases (Were)regularised in the year 1968 when the rules were published. " This has to be read in juxtaposition with what appears at pages 3 and 8 in paragraphs 3 and 13 respectively. At the first place it is again reiterated that the petitioner was holding the post on ad hoc basis and he was doing so subject to the concurrence of the Public Service commission. At the second place this fact is stressed further and it is stated again that "the petitioner as an ad hoc Assistant Director, is not eligible for promotion to Class I post. . . ". What doubt there can be, upon reading these admissions, about the burden of respondent's song.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner rightly contends that such a song would not be allowed to be sung in this Court and that respondents must be made to sing what the law mandates them to do. It is the admitted case of the parties, as it has to be, that now in currency are the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Sewa (Rajpatrit Bharti Niyam), 1966, (for. short the Rules) which govern the conditions of service of the petitioner. These rules are very salutary as also mandatory and. petitioner is entitled to invoke these rules. It is indeed his case, had the respondents needed its tune and treated him fairly with his other colleagues, the position today would have been otherwise. The Rules take care of all situations because these are enacted to do justice to all employees to conform to the constitutional mandate of Article 16. The relevant rule is in following terms :-