ASHOK KUMARVAJPAYEE Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the action of the respondents in not granting senior pay scale to the petitioner and rejecting his claim for grant of the aforesaid benefit vide order dated 28-7-1999, this petition was filed before the State administrative Tribunal in the year 2000 and after winding up of the Tribunal, matter stands transferred to this Court.

(2.) PETITIONER was initially appointed as Deputy Collector and joined the service on 13-6-1988. He was declared permanent with effect from 17-7-1990 vide order Annexure A/1 dated 24-8-1991. After completing 8 years of regular service in the post petitioner became eligible for grant of senior pay scale as per rule 21 of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule of 1975 ). Grievance of the petitioner is that he fulfilled all the necessary criteria for selection and grant of senior pay scale which is to be made on the basis of principle of 'seniority-cum-merit', but his claim has been rejected after considering it from various periods i. e. ending 1st january, 1995, 1st January, 1996 and 1st January, 1997 respectively. Inter alia contending that procedure adopted by the Departmental Selection Committee is not based on the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' but it is based on the principle of 'merit-cum-seniority', which is impermissible and is contrary to Rule 21 of the rules 1975, petitioner seeks interference into the matter.

(3.) SHRI Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the provision of Rule 21 of the Rules, 1975 points out that under sub-rule (3), the procedure for selection on the basis of 'seniority-cum-merit' is clearly stipulated, thereafter inviting my attention to a un-reported judgment passed by a Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 3880/03 (Bhagwan Das Sargaiyan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) decided on 3-3-2006, a division bench's judgment of this Court in the case of Narmada Prasad Saxena vs. State of M. P. and others, 2005 (3) MPLJ 570 = 2005 (2) MPJR 495 and another judgment of this Court in the case of Badrilal vs. State of M. P. and others (2005 (2) M. P. L. J 33), a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. V. Sivaiah and others vs. K. Addanki Babu and others, 1998 (6) SCC 720 so also on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harigovind Yadav vs. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and others, 2006 ILR 931 argued that procedure followed in the present case is not based on the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' but claim of the petitioner is rejected after evaluating the comparative merit of the candidates whose cases were taken up by the DPC. Taking me through the DPC held on 1-8-1995 and 28-8-1997, Shri Arvind Dudawat points out that in the said DPC criteria fixed was for evaluating the confidential records of five years and then to promote only those persons who had obtained minimum four 'kha' entries i. e. 'very good' entries and one 'gha' entry i. e. 'good' entry, it is stated by Shri Arvind Dudawat that in the said process petitioner who earned three 'very good' entries for the year 1998, 1999 and 2000, whose records were also 'good' prior to 1993 having earned two 'good' entries for the year 1993 and 1994 and two 'very good' entries for the year 1991 and 1992 has been ignored and promotion denied after evaluating the inter se merit of the candidates. It is pointed out by Shri Arvind Dudawat that for the year 1999 petitioner had obtain one outstanding entry which is 'ka'. However, in the year 1995 and 1996 as petitioner was facing a departmental enquiry, the recommendation was kept in a sealed cover and after exoneration of the petitioner in the proceedings, the recommendations have been opened but promotion still denied on the ground that petitioner did not earn four 'very good' entires during the previous five years. Accordingly, Shri Arvind Dudawat submits that in evaluating the case of the petitioner contrary to the rules, respondents have committed error and therefore, he seeks interference in the matter.