DEVENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the resolution of respondent No. 2 dated 26-3-2007, Annexure P-9, whereby the petitioner's case for promotion has been sent for approval to the State Government.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner, who is at present working as a Steno-typist in the establishment of the respondent No. 2 having been finally appointed on that post on 22-12-2004, is entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Stenographer as per the provisions of the M. P. Development Authority Services (Officers And Servants) Recruitment Rules, 1987. It is further submitted that the petitioner was considered by a Departmental promotion Committee convened by the respondent for promotion on the post of stenographer but his case was deferred as clarification regarding the requirement of five years service on the post of Steno-typist was sought and it was ultimately decided that the petitioner should be treated as Steno-typist with effect from 23-1-1991 and his case should be considered for promotion on the post of Stenographer. Accordingly, the Departmental Promotion Committee, on reconsideration of the petitioner's case, found him fit for promotion on the post of Stenographer and directed placing the proceedings for approval before the Board of the respondent no. 2. On 30-10-2006 the Board considered the recommendation of the departmental Promotion Committee and requested the Joint Director, Town and country Planning, Jabalpur and the Chief Executive Officer of the Jabalpur development Authority to scrutinize the petitioner's case and give their opinion in that respect. Both the Joint Director as well as the Chief Executive Officer gave an opinion that the promotion proceedings in respect of the petitioner were in accordance with law and, therefore, the Board in a subsequent meeting held on 26-3-2007 again considered the petitioner's case of promotion but instead of taking a decision thereon decided to send the matter for approval of the State Government. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Board has filed the present petition.