YASHWANT SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this public interest litigation challenge is being made to the entire process of examination held by the State of Madhya Pradesh for the promotional posts of Naib-Tahsildar. It is not in dispute that this process is governed by the Rules known as Kanishtha Prashaskiya Bharati Niyam, 1980. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1980 60% of the posts are to be filled by the Public Service Commission and 40% are to be filled through departmental candidates. It is vis-a-vis these departmental candidates a grievance has been made. It is stated that 20% of the posts are to be filled out of revenue inspectors; 10% posts are to be filled out of the clerical staff of the Collector's office and the Commissioners' office through departmental examination and 10% of the posts are to be filled out of the Revenue Inspectors and Patwaris. This again is through the departmental examination. In para 4 of the petition it has been specifically stated that the present dispute relates to the posts to be filled up through the departmental examination from Revenue Inspectors and Patwaris. It is stated that numerous irregularities have been committed in the matter of conducting this examination. It is stated that the result was declared by the respondent No. 2 on 13-8-1996. 568 incumbents were declared successful. It is further stated that some retotalling is being resorted to and in the garb of this retotalling about 67 persons have been reshuffled in the list. It is thus stated that persons who were not successful initially are likely to be selected and the persons who had failed earlier are likely to find place in the list of candidates who are to be appointed.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that a challenge is being made to the filling of posts by promotional exercise under the Rules of 1980. The persons who have taken part in the process of selection are already in service. They are governed by the rules of promotion. The question thus which arises at the very outset is as to whether interference can be made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT be seen that on account of the provisions contained in Article 323-A of the Constitution of India and in view of the fact that the Parliament enacted a Statute by the name of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the power of this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been taken away. This power stands vested now in the Tribunals created under the Act. Notwithstanding this the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court can interfere. This aspect of the matter having been argued at some length it would be apt to notice these arguments.