2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10107
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T J A BA L PU R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 18th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 12845 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA S/O LATE SHRI B.R.
VERMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (S.C.R.B.)PHQ
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI L.C.PATNE – ADVOCATE THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
WITH SHRI ABHAY PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE
STATE
OF
MADHYA
PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME MANTRALAYA,
VALLAB
BHAWAN
BHOPAL
(M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS JAHANGIRABAD,
BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
MADHYA
PRADESH
PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
RESIDENCY
ROAD,
INDORE,
DISTRICT
INDORE(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
SHRI AJAY PANDEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, (C.M. SECURITY, BHOPAL, M.P.),
THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5.
DR.
SANJAY
KUMAR
AGARWAL,
2
ADDITIONAL
SUPERINTENDENT
OF
POLICE,
JABALPUR,
THROUGH
THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
HEAD
QUARTER,
JAHANGIRABAD,
BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY – DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
(SHRI D.K.BILLAIYA – ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3)
(SHRI PANKAJ DUBEY – ADVOCAE WITH SHRI AKSHAY KHANDELWAL –
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.4)
(SHRI SANJAY K.AGARWAL – ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SARTHAK NEMA –
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.5)
(MS.KAUSHIKI MISHRA – ADVOCATE FOR THE INTERVENOR)
“Reserved on : 23.11.2023”
“Pronounced on : 18.12.2023”.
This petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
,Advocate General
1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
against the order dated 17-11-2016 passed by respondent on.1, by which
the respondents no. 4 and 5 have been given seniority over and above the
petitioner, thereby amending the gradation list.
2. It is not out of place to mention here that the Petitioner was placed in
the select list for the post of Dy. S.P. and was appointed by order dated
29-9-1997, whereas the respondents no. 4 and 5 were placed in the wait
list and were given appointment on the post of Dy. S.P. by order dated 5--
1998.
3. According to the petitioner, the amendment in the gradation list, by
the respondent no.1 has caused serious prejudice to him, thereby
adversely affecting his valuable rights. It is not out of place to mention
3
here that during the pendency of this writ petition, the representation
made by the petitioner was also dismissed, therefore, the petition was
amended and prayer for quashment of order dated 21-9-2022 was also
made and accordingly, this petition has been filed seeking the following
relief(s):
(i) That, the order impugned dated 17-11-2016 contained in
Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed with all consequential
effect, in the interest of justice;
(ii) That, the respondents be commanded to considering the
seniority of the petitioner, his seniority be fixed over and above
to the respondent no.4 and 5 and extend all consequential
benefits, in the interest of justice;
(iii) quash the order dated 21-9-2022 Annexure P/15;
(iv) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or
direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued
in the favour of the petitioner.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that M.P. Public Service Commission
had conducted the State Services Examination in the year 1995 and the
result was declared on 19-12-1996. Select list was prepared on 15-1-
1997. The petitioner belongs to S.C. Category and his name finds place
at serial no. 24 in the select list. The respondents no. 4 and 5 could not
find any place in the select list and they were placed in supplementary list
(Wait List). The respondents no. 4 and 5 were also selected for the post
of Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative and accordingly, they were given
appointment on the said post. On 29-9-1997, appointment order of the
petitioner on the post of Dy.S.P. was issued. The validity of the select
list was 1 year and validity of the supplementary list (wait list) was 1 ½
year. It is the case of the petitioner that the validity of the supplementary
list lapsed on 14-7-1998 as its life was to be counted from the date of
issuance of select list i.e., 15-7-1997. It appears that two candidates who
4
were selected for the post of Dy.S.P. did not join and accordingly, by
order dated 13-4-1998, consent was obtained from respondents no. 4 and
5 regarding their willingness for their appointment on the post of Dy.S.P.
Thereafter, the respondents no. 4 and 5 submitted their consent and
accordingly on 5-10-1998, appointment orders of the respondents no. 4
and 5 on the post of Dy.S.P. were issued. It is submitted that the
respondents no. 4 and 5 were placed below the petitioner in the gradation
list, which was in accordance with law. It is submitted that the things
moved smoothly till 2016 and there was no dispute. However, in the year
2016, the wife of the respondent no.4, who is also working in the police
department was posted in the office of Additional Director General of
Police (Personal). The said office is also responsible for maintaining the
seniority of the officers. Accordingly, the respondent no.4 and 5 filed an
application for upgradation of their seniority and without issuing any
notice to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 by impugned order dated 17-
11-2016, upgraded the seniority of the respondents no. 4 and 5 and they
were placed at serial no. 617(A) and 617(B) above the petitioner. The
petitioner was not aware of this change in the gradation list. Only in the
yea