Back
2008(1) JLJ 385
Rajendra Menon, J.
Ashok Kumar Vajpayee v. State of M.P. and another
Writ Petition No.5523 of 2003 (Gwalior);
Decided on 3.1.2008.
Petitioner was initially appointed as Deputy Collector and joined the service on 13.6.1988. He was declared permanent with effect from 17.7.1990 vide order Annexure A-I dated 24.8.1991. After completing 8 years of regular service in the post, petitioner became eligible for grant of senior pay-scale as per rules 21 of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rule of 1975"). Grievance of the petitioner is that he fulfilled all the necessary criteria for selection and grant of senior pay-scale which is to be made on the basis of principle of ‘seniority-cum-merit‘, but his claim has been rejected .... Inter alia contending that procedure adopted by the Departmental Selection Committee is not based on the principle of ‘seniority-cum-merit‘ but it is based on the principle of ‘merit-cum-seniority‘, which is impermissible and is contrary to rule 21 of the Rules 1975, petitioner seeks interference into the matter.
Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner ....argued that procedure followed in the present case is not based on the principle of ‘seniority-cum-merit‘ but claim of the petitioner is rejected after evaluating the comparative merit of the candidates whose cases were taken up by the DPC. [Paras 2 & 3
Held: What is permissible is only fixing a minimum standard or criteria, and comparison of the inter se merit or the comparative merit of various candidates is not permissible.
The list is prepared after evaluating the inter se merit of various candidates. Even though petitioner has earned two very good entries and one outstanding entry for the preceding five years, his claim is rejected. The procedure followed by the respondents is clearly unsustainable, it does not fix any minimum criteria for grant of promotion, but is after evaluating inter se merit of a candidate and is clearly contrary to the principle of ‘seniority-cum-merit‘. Petitioner, upto 1995, having received two good, two very good and one outstanding grading, cannot be ignored for promotion if the principle of ‘seniority-cum-merit‘ is to be followed. That being so, this Court is of the considered view that in evaluating the claim of the petitioner the Departmental Promotion Committee has deviated from the rules fixed for promotion, the criteria followed is not of ‘seniority-cum-merit‘ but it is of ‘merit-cum-seniority‘. Writ Petition No.3880/2003, 2005(3) JLJ 268 and 2005(2) MPLJ 33 relied on. (1998)6 SCC 720 and 2007(1) JU 147 (SC) followed. [Paras 10 & 11
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- service matter - petitioner found eligible for promotion -- mandamus can be issued to promote him -- case need not be remanded for consideration of his case for promotion. Writ Appeal No.613/2007 relied on. [Para 11
¼1½ jkT; iz‘kklu lsok fu;e] 1975 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-21 && fdlh in ij 8 o"kZ lsok && deZpkjh T;s"B osruekuA izksUufr iznku fd, tkus dk ik= gks tkrk gS && fl)kar T;s"Brk≶&;ksX;rk gS && mica/k ds v/khu D;k vuqKs; gSA
;kph izkjaHk esa mi&dyDVj ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k x;k rFkk mlus 13-6-1988 dks lsok Hkkj laHkkykA og vkns‘k mikca/k ,&1 fnukad 24-8-1991 }kjk 17-7-1990 ls izHkkoh LFkk;h ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA ml in ij 8 o"kZ dh fu;fer lsok ds i‘pkr~ ;kph e/;izns‘k jkT; iz‘kklfud lsok fu;e] 1975 ¼,rfLeu~i‘pkr~ ^^1975 ds fu;e** ds :i esa fufnZ"V½ ds fu;e 21 ds vuqlkj T;s"B osrueku izkIr djus dk ik= gks x;kA ;kph dh f‘kd;r gS fd mlds }kjk T;s"B osrueku ds p;u rFkk iznk; ds fy, lHkh vko‘;d ekunaM iw.kZ fd, x, tks fd ^^T;s"Brk≶&;ksX;rk** ds fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk gksrk gS] fdarq mldk nkok [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k gSA ---- vU; ckrksa ds lkFk ;g ladFku djrs gq, fd foHkkxh; p;u lfefr }kjk viukbZ xbZ izfØ;k ^^T;s"Brk≶&;ksX;rk** ds fl)kar ij vk/kkfjr ugha gS vfirq og ^^;ksX;rk≶&Ts"Brk** ds fl)kar ij vk/kkfjr gS] tks fd vuqKs; gS rFkk 1975 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 21 ds izfrdwy gS] ;kph }kjk ekeys esa gLr{ksi dh bZIlk dh xbZ gSA
;kph ds fo}ku dkmUlsy Jh vjfoan nwnkor us cgl dh fd bl ekeys esa vuqlfjr izfØ;k ^^T;s"Brk≶&;ksX;rk** ds fl)kar ij vk/kkfjr ugha gS vfirq ;kph dk nkok mu vH;fFkZ;ksa dh rqyukRed ;ksX;rk ds ewY;kadu ds i‘pkr~ [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS ftuds ekeyksa ij foHkkxh; izksUufr lfefr }kjk fopkj fd;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 2 ,oa 3
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ek= U;wure ekud vFkok ekunaM fu;r fd;k tkuk gh vuqKs; gS] rFkk ,d&nwljs ds eqdkcys esa ;ksX;rk dh rqyuk vFkok fofHkUu vH;fFkZ;ksa dh rqyukRed ;ksX;rk vuqKs; ugha gSA
lwph fofHkUu vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ,d&nwljs ds eqdkcys esa ;ksX;rk ds ewY;kadu ds i‘pkr~ rS;kj dh tkrh gSA ;|fi ;kph us nks vfr mÙke izfof"V;k¡ rFkk ,d mRd`‘V izfof"V iwoZorhZ ik¡p o"kZ esa vftZr dh gSa] mldk nkok ukeatwj fd;k x;k gSA izR;FkhZx.k }kjk vuqlfjr ;g izfØ;k Li"Vr% dk;e j[ks tkus ;ksX; ugha gS] og izksUufr ds iznk; ds fy, U;wure ekunaM fu;r ugha djrh gS] fdarq vH;FkhZ dh ,d&nwljs ds eqdkcys ;ksX;rk ds ewY;kadu ds i‘pkr~ gS rFkk ^^T;s"Brk≶&;ksX;rk** ds fl)kar ds Li"Vr% izfrdwy gSA ;fn ^^T;s"Brk≶&;ksX;rk** ds fl)kar dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk gS] rc 1995 rd nks mÙke] nks vfr mÙke rFkk ,d mRd`‘V Jsf.k;k¡ izkIr djus okys ;kph dh izksUufr ds fy, mis{kk ugha dh tk ldrhA ,slk gksus ls bl U;k;ky; dk lqfopkfjr n`f"Vdks.k gS fd ;kph ds nkos dk ewY;kadu djus esa foHkkxh; izksUufr lfefr }kjk izksUufr ds fy, fu;eksa fopyu fd;k x;k gS] vuqlfjr ekunaM ^^T;s"Brk≶&;ksX;rk** dk ugha gS] vfirq ^^;ksX;rk≶&Ts"Brk** dk gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø-3880@03] 2005¼3½ ts ,y ts 268 rFkk 2005¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 33 voyafcrA ¼1998½6 ,l lh lh 720 rFkk 2007¼1½ ts ,y ts 147 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 11
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && lsok ekeyk && ;kph izksUufr ds fy, ;ksX; ik;k x;k && mldh izksUufr ds fy, ijekns‘k tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gS && ekeyk mldh izksUufr ds fopkj.k ds fy, izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha gSA fjV vihy Ø-613@07 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 11
1. Challenging the action of the respondents in not granting senior pay-scale to the petitioner and rejecting his claim for grant of the aforesaid benefit vide order dated 28.7.1999, this petition was filed before the State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2000 and after winding up of the Tribunal, matter stands transferred to this Court.
2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Deputy Collector and joined the service on 13.6.1988. He was declared permanent with effect from 17.7.1990 vide order Annexure A-I dated 24.8.1991. After completing 8 years of regular service in the post petitioner became eligible for grant of senior pay-scale as per rules 21 of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rule of 1975"). Grievance of the petitioner is that he fulfilled all the necessary criteria for selection and grant of senior pay-scale which is to be made on the basis of principle of 'seniority-cum-merit', but his claim has been rejected after considering it from various periods, i.e., ending 1st January, 1995, 1st January, 1996 and 1st January, 1997 respectively. Inter alia contending that procedure adopted by the Departmental Selection Committee is not based on the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' but it is based on the principle of 'merit-cum-seniority', which is impermissible and is contrary to rule 21 of the Rules 1975, petitioner seeks interference into the matter.
3. Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the provisions of rule 21 of the Rules, 1975 and points out that under sub-rule 3, the procedure for selection on the basis of 'seniority-cum-merit' is clearly stipulated, thereafter inviting my attention to a unreported judgment passed by a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition• No.3880/2003 (Bhagwan Das Sargaiyan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) decided on 3.3.2006, a Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the case of Narmada Prasad Saxena v. State of M.P. and others [2005(3) JLJ 268=2005(2) MPJR 495], and another judgment of this Court in the case of Badrilal v. State of M.P. and others [2005(2) MPLJ 33], a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah and others v. K. Addanki Babu and others [(1998)6 SCC 720], so also an another judgment of the Supreme Com1 in the case of Harigovind Yadav v. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and others [2007(1) JLJ 147=2006 ILR 931], argued that procedure followed in the present case is not based on the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' but claim of the petitioner is rejected after evaluating the comparative merit of the candidates whose cases were taken up by the DPC. Taking me through the DPC held on 1.8.1995 and 28.8.1997, Shri Arvind Dudawat points out that in the said DPC criteria fixed was for evaluating the confidential records of five years and then to promote only those persons who had obtained minimum four 'Kha' entries, i.e., 'very good' entries and one 'gha' entry, i.e., 'good' entry, it is stated by Shri Arvind Dudawat that in the said process petitioner who earned three 'very good' entries for the year 1998, 1999 and 2000, whose records were also 'good' prior to 1993 having earned two 'good' entries for the year 1993 and 1994 and two 'very good' en tries for the year 1991 and 1992 has been ignored and promotion denied after evaluating the inter se merit of the candidates. It is pointed out by Shri Arvind Dudawat that for the year 1999 petitioner had obtained one outstanding entry which is 'ka'. However, in the year 1995 and 1996 as petitioner was facing a departmental enquiry, the recommendation was kept in a sealed cover and after exoneration of the petitioner in the proceedings, the recommendations have been opened but promotion still denied on the ground that petitioner did not earn four 'very good' entries during the previous five years. Accordingly, Shri Arvind Dudawat submits that in evaluating the case of the petitioner contrary to the rules, respondents have
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
