IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI WRIT PETITION No. 11114 of 2012 YOGENDRA VERMA Versus STATE OF M.P. AND ONE ANOTHER Appearance:

Shri Manoj Manav - Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondents/State.

Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar –Advocate for the respondent No.2.

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 224 of 2018 YOGENDRA VERMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ONE ANOTHER Appearance:

Shri Manoj Manav - Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondents/State.

Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar –Advocate for the respondent No.2.

Reserved on 18.02.2026 Post on 27.02.2026 ____________________________________________________

ORDER

Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy and the commonality of the issues involved, both the writ petitions have been heard analogously and are being decided together by this common order.

WP/11114/2012

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action and inaction of the respondents whereby the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar has not been considered. The specific order under challenge is the promotion order dated 11.10.2012 issued by the respondents, whereby as many as nine employees were promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar, while the petitioner’s name was excluded despite recommendations made by Respondent No. 2 (University).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed to the post of Senior Technical Assistant in Respondent No. 2 University in the year 1994, after following the due procedure of appointment. Subsequently, the nomenclature of the post of Senior Technical Assistant was re-designated as Technical Officer. The petitioner completed 18 years of service without the benefit of promotion or a higher pay scale. The petitioner submitted an application for consideration of his name for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar.

4. After considering his qualifications and experience, the University sought guidance/permission from the State Government vide letters dated 25.08.2009 and 01.09.2010. In response, the State Government sought certain information from the University vide a letter dated 03.02.2011. Thereafter, the respondents issued an order on 11.10.2012, promoting several persons to the post of Assistant Registrar, but the name of the petitioner was not included.

5. It is contended that the petitioner possesses a Master’s Degree in Zoology, fulfilling the minimum educational qualification required for the Assistant Registrar post. It is submitted that the pay scale of a Technical Officer and an Assistant Registrar is fundamentally the same (Rs. 15600-39100), with the only difference being the Grade Pay (Rs. 5400/- for the former and Rs. 6600/- for the latter).

6. It is urged that under Statute No. 31 of the Conditions of Service for University employees, the respondents have previously changed nomenclatures and promoted persons to Assistant Registrar, such as one Mr. R.C. Sirolia and one Mr. P.L. Sahu in Dr. Harisingh Gaur University, Sagar. It is contended that the non- consideration was due to the inaction of Respondent No. 2 University in failing to send proper and requisite information to the State authority. Consequently, junior employees appointed in 1983 as L.D.C. secured multiple promotions. It is further submitted that as per State Government policy, a minimum of two pay up- gradations is mandatory in case of non-grant of promotion, which has been denied to the petitioner.

7. Respondent No. 2 contends that it had duly recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the State Government. However, the State Government (Respondent No. 1) is the competent authority to undertake promotions to the post of Assistant Registrar. The University denies failing to supply information, submitting that all relevant information sought by the State Government was sub