Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 594 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Mariamma P. Joseph

2001-08-14

A.K.MISHRA, BHAWANI SINGH

body2001
JUDGMENT Singh, C.J. (Oral) -- Both the petitions (W.P. No. 4031/99 - State of M.P. and others v. Smt. Mariamma Josheph and others, and W.P. No. 4069/99 - Vijay Prasad v. State of M.P. and others) arise out of the order dated 7.6.1999 passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, in Original Application No. 1016/1996, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. Smt. Mariamma Joseph and Vijay Prasad were Assistants Grade III (Lower Division Clerks) in the office of the Chief Engineer (West Zone), Public Works Department, Government of M.P. In the promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II (Upper Division Clerk) made through the order dated 2.9.1996, she has been superseded by Mr. Vijay Prasad (petitioner in W.P. No. 4069/99). The promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II (UDC) is governed by the M.P. Public Works Department (Non-Gazetted) Services Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1972 (for brevity 'Rules of 1972'). According to the Rules of 1972, for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II (UDC), the candidates must have put in three years of service on the post of Assistant Grade III (LDC). Preference is to be given to those candidates, who have passed Accounts Training or have passed some papers of Superior Clerkship Examination. By communication No. F-1O/1I81/Estt./19, dated March 30, 1981 (Annexure P-5), executive instructions have been issued and the reasons for issuance thereof are mentioned in para 2. Perusal of this para 2 clearly points out that this has been done to remove the doubt with respect to number of papers to be passed by the candidate and in absence of clarification, the decision would terminate on the opinion of the Departmental Promotion Committee, from time to time. The instructions make reference of certain categories to remove the ambiguity in the statutory rules. The first category is of those candidates, who have passed Superior Clerkship Examination, second of those, who have passed Accounts Training. Third category arises out of first category and it mentions passing of one paper out of two in establishment matters without aid of books and one paper out of two in Public Works Accounts without the aid of books. The first question for determination is whether the State issued executive instructions in this case. Third category arises out of first category and it mentions passing of one paper out of two in establishment matters without aid of books and one paper out of two in Public Works Accounts without the aid of books. The first question for determination is whether the State issued executive instructions in this case. Learned counsel for Smt. Mariamma Joseph contends that by issuing these executive instructions, the basic foundation of the statutory rules has been exploded. Precisely, the submission is that the statutory rules have been supplanted, which could not have been done. At the most, the State can supplement the rules where there is gap but not supplant them. Some decisions reported in (1989) 4 SCC 465 = 1989(4) SLR 503 (Bindeshwari Ram v. State of Bihar and others), (1989) 2 SCC 541 = 1989(2) SLR 202 (Paluru Ramkishnaiah and others v. Union of India and others), 1995(1) SLR 246 (Sarat Kumar Dash and others v. Biswajit Patnaik and others) and AIR 1989 SC 1133 (State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut were brought to our notice. Perusal of the statutory rules would clearly show that the preference given is not exact. It is vague so far as the latter part thereof is concerned. With a view to remove the vagueness and uncertainty, the requirement of issuing executive instruction was felt. Reasons for issuing these instructions have been clearly mentioned in para 2 of the communication (Annexure P-5). Therefore, it cannot be said that the executive instructions have supplanted the statutory rules, rather, they have been made clear by issuance of these executive instructions. Having come to this conclusion, we turn to the facts of the case. . There is no competition between Smt. Mariamma Joseph and Vijay Prasad. The case of Mr. Vijay Prasad falls under category one, since he has passed Superior Clerkship Examination, whereas Smt. Mariamma Joseph has only passed five papers. Therefore, the claim of Mr. Vijay Prasad for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II (UDC) is clearly better than that of Smt. Mariamma Joseph. The promotion of Mr. Vijay Prasad is in accordance with the Rules of 1972 read with instructions dated March 30, 1981 (annexure P-5). Consequently, both the petitions (WP No. 4031/99) and WP No. 4069/99) are allowed and the order of the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated June 7, 1999, is set aside. Costs on parties.