Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5817
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH, CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
Mehfooz Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 28381/2018
Minimum educational qualification is a mandatory requirement for appointment and promotion to a post, and cannot be relaxed merely on the basis of experience or other factors.
Headnote:
Promotion - High Court Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1996 - Sections 8, 9
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the promotion of the respondent No.2 to the post of Assistant Registrar, ignoring the petitioner's seniority and merit. The respondent No.2 was initially appointed as a Stenographer despite not having the required qualifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial appointment of the respondent No.2 as a Stenographer was illegal as he did not possess the minimum educational qualification required for the post. Consequently, his subsequent promotions to the posts of Private Secretary and Assistant Registrar were also invalid. The court directed the respondent No.1 to revert the respondent No.2 to a post for which he is qualified and to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from the date when the respondent No.2 was promoted.
Issues: 1. Whether the initial appointment of the respondent No.2 as a Stenographer was valid?2. Whether the subsequent promotions of the respondent No.2 to the posts of Private Secretary and Assistant Registrar were valid?3. Whether the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar was properly considered by the DPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The initial appointment of the respondent No.2 as a Stenographer was invalid as he did not possess the minimum educational qualification required for the post.2. The subsequent promotions of the respondent No.2 to the posts of Private Secretary and Assistant Registrar were also invalid as he did not possess the minimum qualification required for the feeder post of Private Secretary.3. The DPC's decision to not consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar was invalid as the ACRs considered by the DPC were not communicated to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the DPC's decision declaring the petitioner unfit for promotion, and directed the respondent No.1 to revert the respondent No.2 to a post for which he is qualified and to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from the date when the respondent No.2 was promoted.
ORDER
Challenge is made to the orders dated 11/14.08.2016, 14.10.2016 and 26.08.2017 whereby the respondent No.2 has been promoted on the post of Assistant Registrar in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay Rs.5400/- ignoring the merit qualification and seniority of the petitioner over and above the respondent No.2. The petitioner has further challenged the promotion of the respondent No.2 on the ground that respondent No.2 is not having a minimum qualification as required for appointment for the post of feeder cadre and the petitioner was senior from the very inception, thus he could not have been superseded.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a Stenographer w.e.f. 25.03.1985 in District Court, Chhindwara and he was appointed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 06.01.1988 on the post of Personal Assistant. In pursuance to the same he joined on 19.01.1988. He was promoted to the post of Private Secretary on 06.05.1996. The respondent No.2 was initially appointed w.e.f. 10.11.1986. He was holding the qualification of Higher Secondary School Certificate and was placed below the petitioner in the gradation list of his cadre. The seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Private Secretary always remained over and above the respondent No.2.
3. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Officers and Employee Recruitment and Condition of Service Classification of Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 1996 {hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1996”} came into force on 01.04.1996 and was applicable to the case of the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 which provides for method of recruitment, qualification, eligibility and procedure for promotion. In terms of Part IV of the aforesaid Rules, the post of Private Secretary is to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Personal Assistants on merit-cum- seniority basis, if necessary by direct recruitment. The qualification prescribed in Rule 9 for the post of Private Secretaries is Graduate from a recognised University, qualified in English Shorthand from a recognized Board with a speed of 100 words per minute and preference to Graduation in Law. It is pointed out that even for the post of Personal Assistant and Stenographer which are feeder cadre to the Private Secretary, the minimum qualification is Graduate and Shorthand. The respondent No.2 is holding the qualification of Higher Secondary pass. He was not even Graduate and having a qualification of Shorthand.
However, he has been promoted along with the petitioner for the post of Private Secretary vide order dated 06.05.1996.
4. On 20.07.2016, the Departmental Promotion Committee was held to consider the promotional aspects to the post of Assistant Registrar.
No criteria was fixed for promotion from the post of Private Secretary to Assistant Registrar, despite the fact that for promotion to Assistant Registrar from the post of Section Officer/Librarian /Assistant Editor, I.L.R. the criteria was two ‘Very Good’ ACR in last five years has been prescribed by the DPC. Two post of Assistant Registrars were to be filled up from the cadre of Private Secretary. The DPC recommended the name of respondent No.2 alone whereas the petitioner was not found fit considering the ACRs and overall records. The representation submitted by the petitioner against wrongful supersession by the respondent No.2 was rejected by the respondent No.1. He again preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble Chief Justice on 10.07.2017 but the appeal was also rejected by the non-reasoned and non-speaking order and the same was communicated vide order dated 26.08.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner sought information under the RTI which was supplied to him vide letter dated 03.01.2018. The ACRs from 2012 to 2017 were having no adverse communications. The petitioner was having four ‘Good’ and one ‘Very Good’ ACRs. No entry in the ACR for the aforesaid period was communicated to
