Seniority in public service must follow the order of merit per category, prohibiting inter-category comparisons, and claims made after inordinate delay are unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P/1) whereby respondent No. 1 has summarily rejected the representation filed by petitioner without due application of mind, merely stating that the claim of petitioner had already been decided by a speaking order dated 28.03.2017. While doing so, respondent No. 1 has failed to consider the subsequent facts and documents submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order is non-speaking in nature and does not reflect any consideration of the grounds raised in the representation filed by petitioner, particularly with respect to the claim of petitioner for appropriate placement in the gradation list. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking following reliefs :

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 11.09.2018 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to place the petitioner over and above respondent no. 3 in the gradation list, with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law.

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was duly selected through a competitive examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC). In the result initially declared on 04.11.1993, the name of the petitioner was placed at serial number 5 in the waiting list. It is pertinent to mention that respondent No. 3 belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and his name appeared at serial number 27 in the same list. It is significant to note that candidates up to serial number 25 in the said list belonged to the general category, while candidates from serial number 26 onwards belonged to reserved categories. Due to the non-joining of one candidate from the general category and for reasons best known to the Department, the petitioner was issued a formal order of appointment on 03.08.1995, enabling him to join the post. The petitioner subsequently became aware, upon receiving a copy of the gradation list for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, that his name had been placed below that of respondent No. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner promptly submitted a representation dated 08.04.2011, seeking rectification of his position in the gradation list. Upon perusal of the grievance raised by the petitioner, the concerned department, on 23.06.2011, forwarded the objection raised by the petitioner to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, specifically requesting that the seniority of the petitioner be determined in accordance with the law, particularly in light of the fact that the petitioner was selected under the general category, and as per settled law, a general category candidate with higher merit is entitled to seniority above a reserved category candidate. Despite the above, no substantive action was taken on the representation filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner again submitted a fresh representation on 05.10.2011, reiterating his claim for placement above respondent No. 3. Thereafter, a formal reminder was issued to the State Government on 24.10.2011. In February 2012, the Director General of Police rejected the representation filed by petitioner on the specious ground that the merit position and score of the petitioner were not annexed with the representation, and thus no ma