RAMBHUWAN PRASAD SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is an accountant working in the Forest Department, has filed this petition seeking relief of consideration of his case for promotion on the post of Head -Clerk/Assistant and has also assailed the validity of order dated 15 -3 -2000 by which respondent No. 3 has been promoted on the ground that the petitioner who is senior to respondent No. 3, has been ignored.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially recruited as a Daftari in the year 1961, was subsequently appointed as a Lower Division Clerk by order dated 17 -8 -1962 and thereafter promoted as an Upper Division Clerk by order dated 14 -10 -1971. It is submitted that though the petitioner did not pass the accounts training examination, as he was never sent for training, he was promoted on the post of accountant by order dated 4 -3 -1974 and was shown at serial No. 3 of the gradation list of accountants while respondent No. 3 was shown at serial No. 5. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that by circular dated 24 -11 -1984 and 18 -1 -1996 the condition for passing accounts training examination in respect of the persons who had completed 45 years of age, was relaxed and, therefore, the petitioner who was senior to respondent No. 3, was entitled to be considered and promoted on the post of Head -Clerk and he could not have been superseded by the respondent No. 3, who was promoted as a Head -Clerk by the impugned order dated 15 -3 -2000 only on account of not having passed the accounts training examination.

(3.) PER contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1978, the petitioner was necessarily required to pass the accounts training examination as that is an essential requirement for being promoted on the post of accountant and as the petitioner, admittedly, has not passed the accounts training examination, he cannot be considered for promotion on the post of Head -Clerk, though he is being permitted to be continued on the post of accountant. Learned Counsel for the respondent/State has also filed a copy of the circular issued by the State Government on 3 -6 -1997 by which the previous circulars of the State, dated 11 -7 -1985 and 18 -1 -1996 exempting persons who have attained the age of 45, from passing accounts training examination, have been withdrawn and passing of the accounts training examination has been made essential irrespective of the age of the employee. The respondents have also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M. P. No. 32 of 1978, M. F. Siddique vs. Govt. of M.P. and others, dated 27 -7 -1981, which has been filed as Annexure R -2, wherein similar issues raised by the petitioner therein were considered and the petition was dismissed.