Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 509 (MP)

Karan Singh v. State of M. P.

2004-06-29

DIPAK MISRA

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner was appointed as Peon in the Department of Education on 21/5/1977. It is not disputed that he has passed Higher Secondary. He was promoted to the post of Lab Assistant vide Annexure A-2. Thereafter, the post of Lab Assistant has been converted and re-designated as Lab Technician with different pay scale. As pleaded, a circular was issued vide Annexure A-5, dated 21-7-87 stipulating the qualification for Lab Technician. On the basis of such circular, on 24-8-87 vide Annexure A-4 the petitioner was reverted to the post of peon. A clarificatory circular dated 19-10-87 (Annexure A-6) was issued indicating that earlier circular dated 21-7-87 is prospective in nature. On coming into force of clarificatory circular an order dated 15-2-88 came into force by which the order of reversion of the petitioner was recalled and the petitioner was put in the post of Lab Attendant and he was allowed to get the old pay scale since 1-1-85 in the pay scale of Rs. 515-840. Vide Annexure A-9 the petitioner was designated as Lab Assistant with effect from 1-1-85 and the pay scale could remain that of Lab Attendant. The grievance of the petitioner is that once he was designated as Lab Technician on 20-10-86 with effect from 1-1-85 and was conferred the benefit of pay scale of Lab Technician the same could not have been withdrawn inasmuch as he had the requisite qualification of Lab Technician as on 1-1-85. ( 2. ) IT is submitted by Mr. Tamrakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the date of re-designation with retrospective effect is effective from the date of clarification and that no other circular or guidelines has come into existence afterwards. ( 3. ) MR. S. K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate does not dispute the same as a proposition of law. It is contended by him that the petitioner was erroneously given the post of Technician as for different post different qualification is required as is demonstrable from Annexure R-l, dated 21-2-83 which lays a postulate that for Lab Technician one should have higher secondary with science subject and should have five years of regular service in regular cadre. There is no doubt that the petitioner has put in five years regular service in the feeder cadre but the question that arises is whether he was Higher Secondary in Science. There is no doubt that the petitioner has put in five years regular service in the feeder cadre but the question that arises is whether he was Higher Secondary in Science. A free translation of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of Annexure R-l read as under : "2. On the Vacant post of Lower Division Clerk such Class IV employees be promoted under 10% who have passed Higher Secondary Examination and have completed 5 years of service. 3. On vacant post of Laboratory Assistant, Laboratory Attendant be promoted against 50% promotional quota who are Higher Secondary in Science and have completed 5 years of Service. ( 4. ) IN Colleges if the post of Laboratory Assistant are lying vacant and a Class IV employee with Higher Secondary in Science are not available and if Class IV employees who are Higher Secondary in other subjects are available, the against the said post they be appointed as Lower Division Clerk as per Serial No. 2. " 4. On a conjoint reading of Clauses 2 to 4, it is perceivable that incumbent who is having five years experience in the feeder cadre and Higher Secondary in the subject of Science would be considered for promotion. Definitely, the petitioner does not fall in that category. In the absence of requisite qualification such Class IV employee having five years experience can be considered in 10% posts meant for L. D. C. The petitioner, as has been considered and promoted to the post of Lab Attendant is deemed to be promoted in the category of L. D. C. ( 5. ) SUBMISSION of Mr. Tamrakar is that the petitioner should have been deemed to be promoted as Lab Attendant and there can not be quarrel in regard to the post of Lower Division Gerk as there is stipulation "if there has been non-availability of persons having requisite qualification". The aforesaid submission is to be noted to be rejected inasmuch as there is a reference to Clause 2 in Clause 4. Clause 2 clearly states that 10% of Class IV employees would be promoted as Lower Division Clerk. The language in the aforesaid circular if properly construed is not to keep other Class IV persons, namely, Peons who have Higher Secondary qualification not in Science but in humanities to confine it to 10% itself. Clause 2 clearly states that 10% of Class IV employees would be promoted as Lower Division Clerk. The language in the aforesaid circular if properly construed is not to keep other Class IV persons, namely, Peons who have Higher Secondary qualification not in Science but in humanities to confine it to 10% itself. Clause 2 and Clause 4 are the attempts for enhancing the percentage by way of adjustment of Lab Attendant in the category of L. D. C. ( 6. ) IN view of the aforesaid, I do not find any error in the order passed by the respondents by not treating the petitioner as L. D. C. ( 7. ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.