Employees must hold substantive posts in the feeder cadre for regular promotion on a particular post, and no employee can claim a posting on a different post outside the Rules.

JUDGMENT :

By filing this writ petition initially the petitioners, four in number, working on the post of Sanitary Inspectors and officiating on the post of Chief Municipal Officer of various Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats, have approached this Court ventilating their grievances against circular dated 04.02.2012. It is contended that by such a circular, right of petitioners to be promoted on the post of Chief Municipal Officer, available under a previous circular of State Government, has been taken away. It is contended that in terms of certain decisions rendered by this Court in a different writ petition, such a circular is issued saying that those, who are not in the channel of promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer, under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Services (Executive) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 1973 Rules') and are working as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer, be removed from the post of Chief Municipal Officer. It is contended that such a circular is called in question in one of the writ petition and the operation of the circular is stayed. It is further contended that since the persons like petitioners are working as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer, their right to be considered for regular promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer, is violated in such a manner and, therefore, the writ petition is required to be filed seeking quashment of the said circular as also seeking a direction against respondents to promote the petitioners on the post of Chief Municipal Officer.

2. During pendency of the writ petition since certain orders of posting and transfer have been issued, by making amendment in the writ petition the petitioners have called in question the said orders and have sought the relief for quashment of order dated 22.02.2013. After the amendment was allowed, on an application made by the petitioners, an order of interim stay was granted on 01.03.2013. By filing the I.A. for grant of interim relief, it is contended that the persons like petitioners could not have been dislodged from their posts as an interim protection was already granted to them on 21.01.2013 and an absolute stay with respect to posting order was also granted on 01.03.2013. It is contended that the conduct of the respondents if seen, it would be clear that only to circumvent the interim orders of this Court, such orders were issued.

3. By filing a return, the official respondents have contended that the petitioners would not be entitled to grant of any relief inasmuch as they are not working on the feeder post for promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer. Since they are working as Sanitary Inspectors, who are governed by a separate set of Rules known as Madhya Pradesh State Municipal (Health) Services Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2011, they have a channel of promotion under their own Rules and are to be promoted as Health Officers. They cannot claim consideration of their claim for promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer. It is contended that the entire petition is misconceived and, thus, deserves to be dismissed. By filing an application to intervene, those who were posted in place of petitioners, have approached this Court. The respondent No.3 has also filed a detailed return pointing out the fact that in fact the order of posting in respect of respondent No.3 was issued. One of the petitioner, who was Sanitary Inspector, was shifted from the post of Incharge Chief Municipal Officer and in his place the respondent No.3 was posted. This being so, the claim made by the petitioners in their writ petition is wholly misconceived. After filing of the return the application for recall of the order has been filed by the respondent No.3. By filing certain reply to such I.A., the petitioner No.2 has pointed out that in fact deliberately the rights of petitioners were jeopardised with mala fide intention.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the rec