SACHINDRA KUMAR SILAWAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13.1.2017 issued b the respondent No.1 thereby confirmed the services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director/Manager with effect from 1.8.2005. An advertisement was issued by the M.P. Public Service Commission, Indore for appointment on the post of Assistant Director of Industries. The petitioner has applied for the said post and on the basis of merit, he has selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Director of Industries vide order 23.2.1991 on probation period of two years. However, his services were terminated vide order dated 15.7.1992 issued by the respondent No.1. The said order of termination was quashed by the erstwhile M.P. State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 28.8.1993 and the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 29.4.2993 by the respondent No.1 with an observation that the period of intervention caused on account of termination shall be decided after decision of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide its order dated 12.9.1994 has dismissed the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State Government and confirmed the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted all the benefits for the period of intervention i.e. period during which he remained out of employment i.e. with effect from 15.7.1992 to 29.4.1994 and, therefore, the continuity of the services of the petitioner remained intact. After completion of period of probation of two years, his services were required to be confirmed by the respondents, but the same was not done at the relevant point of time in the pretext of the petitioner's A.C.R. for the year 1994 being adverse and communicated to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 thereafter issued order dated 26.12.1997 under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Government Services (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 and the services of the petitioner as many as 11 Assistant Directors/Managers including the petitioner was declared as temporary and quasi permanent w.e.f. 4.3.1993. Against the said order, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents. Representation submitted by the petitioner remained pending and in the meanwhile, two similarly situated Assistant Directors of Industries/Mangers had challenged the aforesaid order dated 26.12.1997 by filing an O.A.No.499/1998 before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.6.1999 has quashed the order dated 26.12.1997 and directed the respondents to treat the applicants therein as having completed the probation period satisfactorily. However, the benefit of the aforesaid order was not given to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the entire action of the respondents in not confirming the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2011 is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that, earlier the respondents had terminated the services of the petitioner and the order of termination was set aside by the State Administrative Tribunal and he was directed to be reinstated. Thereafter, he was reinstated. Thus, continuity in services of the petitioner was remained intact. He further submits that, the petitioner was entitled to be confirmed after completion of two years services i.e. with effect from 4.3.1993, however, the respondents have not confirmed the petitioner on the said post with effect from 1.1.2000 on the ground of adverse confidential report. However, he submits that the said adverse confidential report was never communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents while considering the case of confirmation of the petitioner, they should have ignore the adverse confidential report. He relied on the judgment passed in the case of Kaluram Patidar vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P.No.11064/2010 vide order dated 25.8.2011.

(3.) The respondents have filed their reply and in the reply, they have stated that, the confidential report of the petitioner for the year 1991-1992 was adverse and therefore, his case for confirmation was not considered in the year 1991-1992. That, against the order dated 26.12.1997 Harish Kumar Saxena and Yusuf Khan had challenged the order by filing an Original Application No.499/1998 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal. However, no such writ petition was filed by the petitioner due to his adverse confidential report. The case of the petitioner was also considered for confirmation; however, his confidential report for the year 1997-1998 was average and ACR for the years 1997-1998, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 was adverse entries. Further his two increments without cumulative effect has been withheld by order dated 31.10.1998. The respondents have further stated that, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, a review departmental promotion committee was held on 28.12.2016. However, as the post was vacant as on 1.8.2005, the petitioner was confirmed on 1.8.2005. In such circumstance, learned counsel for the respondents prays that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.