KRISHNA KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is working as Assistant Sales Tax Officer, is claiming seniority over respondents 4 to 110.

(2.) THE petitioner entered service as Sales Tax Inspector on 7-11-1963 on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. He was confirmed by order dated 30-7-1966 with effect from 18-12-1965. The respondents Nos. 4 to 9 and 88 to 110 had also entered service as Sales Tax Inspectors directly recruited as the petitioner while respondents Nos. 10 to 87 are the personnel drawn from Block, Panchayat, Social welfare and Industries Department and being surplus they were absorbed as Sales Tax inspectors between the period 13-2-1967 to 28-9-1970 but they were given seniority with effect from 31-3-1967. All these respondents were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Sales Tax Inspectors. Next promotion is to the post of Assistant Sales Tax officer to be made in accordance with M. P. Sales-tax Subordinate Executive Class III recruitment Rules, 1966. Under Rule 14 on completion of 5 years' service as Sales Tax inspector he becomes eligible for being promoted to the post of Assistant Sales Tax officer. In the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in April and october 1972 the petitioner was not found fit for promotion as Assistant, Sales-tax officer. The next meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held in march 1973 and considered cases of direct recruits and absorbed Inspectors but the name of the petitioner could not be considered as his representation was pending against adverse confidential remarks. Again in the meeting of the D. P. C. held in June 1974 the petitioner's name was not considered as his representation was still pending but the respondents 4 to 9 and 88 to 110 were found fit and promoted as Asstt. Sales-tax Officers from 1972 onwards. Thereafter the representations of the petitioners were rejected but on 31-12-1977, 146 promotions were made including that of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sales-tax Officer on ad hoc basis as there were a large number of vacancies. The names were cleared by the D. P. C. in Feb. 1979 and has been ratified by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner and the respondents 4 to 110 were confirmed as Assistant Sales-tax Officers on 17-1-1978 but the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 110 were confirmed as Assistant Sales-tax Officers on 1-4-1982. In the gradation list of Assistant Sales-tax Officers prepared on the basis of continuous officiation on the post, the petitioner was shown below respondents 4 to 110.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that the seniority has not been correctly fixed as required under Rule 12 (c) of M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service)Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The inter se seniority of the promoted Assistant Sales-tax Officers should be the same as that in their substantive grade i. e. Sales-tax Inspector. The petitioner being senior to all these respondents in the cadre of Sales-tax Inspectors, he should be placed above all of them. The petitioner's further contention is that since the petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 and 88 to 110 have been confirmed as Assistant Sales-tax Officers on 1-4-1982 the petitioner continued to remain senior to these respondents. During pendency of this petition, a single Bench of this Court in Madem Mohan vs. State of M. P. , 1985 M. P. L. J. 533, held that all those persons working as Sales-tax Inspectors even prior to framing of M. P. Sales-tax Subordinate Executive Class III Recruitment Rules, 1966, and persons who were working in some other Government departments and were subsequently recruited as Sales-tax Inspectors, the subsequent appointees cannot be allowed to claim deemed seniority on the basis of their earlier service in different departments. In view of this decision, the gradation list of Assistant Sales-tax Officers was revised and the petitioner has been placed above respondents 10 to 87 who were absorbed as sales-tax Inspectors from different departments. The State of M. P. has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and status quo was ordered to be maintained. It may be useful to refer to Rule 12 (c) proviso (i) :