JAGAT NARAIN TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer. He was later promoted as Executive Engineer and then in the year 1973 further promoted as Superintending Engineer. In the gradation list of Superintending Engineers (Irrigation) as on August 22, 1979, the petitioner is shown at Serial No. 21 and the respondents No. 2 to 6 ranked lower. The petitioner, therefore, says that they are juniors to him. All those respondents are now Chief Engineers. Respondent No. 2 G. S. Jaspal, was so promoted in August, 1984 and the other respondents thereafter. Rules have been framed governing the services of gazetted officers in the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Service. They are known as Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Engineering Services (Gazetted Recruitment) Rules, 1968. According to the Schedule 4, annexed to those rules the next higher post of promotion from Superintending Engineer is that of Chief Engineer. The posts of Chief Engineers can be filled in only by promotion. The criteria for such promotion is laid down in Rule 15 of the said rules.

(2.) THE petitioner's grievance in this petition is that while the respondents No. 2 to 6 who are juniors to him as Superintending Engineers, have been promoted as Chief Engineers and thus he has been wrongly superseded by them. According to him, this appears to be so because of certain adverse entries contained in his service roll for period between April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981 and April 1, 1981 to March 31, 1982. These adverse entries were admittedly communicated to the petitioner on January 8, 1986 and on January 15, 1986. The petitioner vide documents No. 11 and 12 tiled with the petition represented against these adverse entries submitting a detailed explanation. When this petition was filed in April, 1986, the representations were pending consideration and no decision was taken thereon. However, during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner placed before the Court certain orders of the State Government in Irrigation Department dated July 13, 1987, by which the representations against the adverse entries for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 stand rejected. However, that order was modified by another order dated November 9, 1987. A part of the adverse entry communicated to him for that year was quashed. The adverse entry which thus stands removed from the character roll of the petitioner for the year 1980-81 is as follows:-

(3.) THE feet that aforesaid adverse entries have been taken into account by the Screening Committee in its meeting in July, 1983, February, 1985 and March, 1986 has been specifically averred by the petitioner in para 17-A of the petition. This is how the allegation runs