The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to meet the conditions of promotion within the specified time frame justifies reversion to the previous position, and exemptions from these conditions apply only at the time of promotion.

ORDER RAVI MALIMATH, C. J. : – The petitioners were initially appointed as peon in the District Court, Satna on 8-1-2010 and 16-11-2000 respectively. Vide order dated 25-6-2015, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-III with a condition that they should obtain a certificate of Hindi typing from a recognised Board and one year Computer Diploma from a UGC certified institute, within a period of two years. Since the same was not done, they were reverted to the post of peon by the impugned order dated 29-6-2020. Aggrieved by the same, appeals were filed, which were dismissed on 22-10-2021. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.

2. Ms. Anjali Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioners contends that the order of reversion is bad in law. She places reliance on the Government notification dated 1-4-2003 which is produced as Annexure P/4 to the petition. A reading of the same would indicate that there is an exemption granted to the persons who are aged 45 years or more. That in similar circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this Court, Bench at Indore in Writ Petition No. 17864 of 2019, Mahesh Giri vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other, connected petitions, vide judgment dated 16-1-2020 has held that the promotion is to be reckoned from the date of attaining the age of 45 years and therefore, reversed the order of reversion. It is pleaded that the benefit granted to the petitioners therein be extended to the petitioners herein also.

3. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for respondents.

4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in the petition. The order of promotion granted to the petitioners is quite clear. It indicates that they should obtain a certificate in Hindi typing and one year Diploma in computer within a period of two years from the date of promotion. The promotion was effected in the year 2015. Therefore the certificates should have been obtained within the year 2017. Having failed to do so, they were not entitled to continue in the promoted posts. Therefore, they have been rightly reverted back to their old position.

5. The reliance placed on the Government notification dated 1-4-2003, in our considered view, may be misplaced. The notification itself clearly reiterates the position with regard to passing of these two exams in the event of a promotion. However, the last sentence of the notification would indicate that the persons aged 45 years and above would be exempted from such a condition. Therefore, the reading of the same would indicate that it is applicable only to those persons who have crossed the age of 45 years as on the date of promotion. It cannot be read otherwise. So far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge is concerned, the facts therein are quite different. The petitioners therein also did not clear the relevant exam. They were reverted after a period of 12 years. Keeping in mind the fact that they have continued to work for a period of 12 years and also in pursuance of the interim order granted by the Court, the learned Single Judge on the basis of equity came to the conclusion that the date of promotion should be reckoned as when they attained the age of 45 years.

6. The facts involved in the present case are quite different. The promotion was granted in 2015, which means that they should have cleared the exam within the year 2017. Within a period of 3 years, they have been reverted. Therefore, there cannot be a comparison so far as the facts are concerned. Yet another contention being advanced is by placing reliance on Annexure at page 24 of this petition, which is a communication addressed by the petitioner No. 2. It is dated 31-1-2018. It is written to the authority saying that he requires a transfer to a place where he can obtain the due certificates. The same would clearly indicate that the intention of the petitioners was to clear the exam even in the year 2018, namely after a lapse of three years’ period. Therefore, the contention bein