Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 394 (MP)

P C JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009-03-26

AJIT SINGH

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 8. 10. 2008, Annexure P1, whereby respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been re-appointed on the posts of Engineer-in-Chief. The petitioner has also prayed that the State Government be directed to promote him to the post of Engineer-in-Chief. ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are these. The petitioner is presently working on the post of Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department of the State Government. Respondent nos. 3 and 4, who were also posted in the same department as Engineer-in-Chief, were to retire from service on 30. 9. 2008 on attaining their statutory age of superannuation. A meeting of the Screening Committee was, therefore, fixed for 27. 9. 2008 to consider the promotion of Chief Engineers to the post of Engineer-in-Chief. But one Chief Engineer Dhanesh Chandra Saxena, by disputing his seniority, succeeded in getting an order dated 26. 9. 2008, Annexure P4, from this Court in Writ Petition No. 11959/2008 (S ). By the said order the State Government was restrained from initiating the process of making promotion to the posts of Engineer-in-Chief till the decision of the representation of Dhanesh Chandra Saxena regarding his proper placement in the seniority list. Having regard to the order, the State Government stopped the process of promotion. The State Government also issued the order of superannuation of respondent nos. 3 and 4 on 30. 9. 2008 and later by the impugned order dated 8. 10. 2008 reappointed them as Engineer-in-Chief for a period of six months from 1. 10. 2008 up to 31. 3. 2009. As directed, the State Government considered the representation of Dhanesh Chandra Saxena and rejected the same on 10. 11. 2008. ( 3. ) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent nos. 3 and 4 have obtained their reappointment on the posts of Engineer-in-Chief by political influence without the recommendation of Screening Committee and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. It has also been submitted that if respondent nos. 3 and 4 would not have been reappointed, the petitioner had every chance of being promoted to the post of Engineer-in-Chief. 3 and 4 have obtained their reappointment on the posts of Engineer-in-Chief by political influence without the recommendation of Screening Committee and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. It has also been submitted that if respondent nos. 3 and 4 would not have been reappointed, the petitioner had every chance of being promoted to the post of Engineer-in-Chief. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, denied that the reappointment was made under political influence and submitted that they had to be reappointed in public interest because of the situation created by the High Courts order dated 26. 9. 2008. ( 4. ) IT is, therefore, to be examined whether, in the fact situation of the case, the State Government acted bonafide in public interest by reappointing respondent nos. 3 and 4 on the posts of Engineerin-Chief. As already mentioned above, both these respondents were to retire from service on 30. 9. 2008 and the State Government, in all fairness, had fixed the meeting of Screening Committee for 27. 9. 2008 to consider the promotions of Chief Engineers to the posts of Engineer-in-Chief. But this Court by order dated 26. 9. 2008 restrained the State Government from initiating the process for promotion till the decision of the representation of Dhanesh Chandra Saxena. An emergent situation, therefore, arose and since it was not desirable to keep the important posts of Engineer-in-Chief vacant, the State Government in public interest thought it proper to reappoint respondent nos. 3 and 4 on their posts for six months. The rules of business of the Executive Government of Madhya Pradesh annexed with the return as Annexure R1 clearly empowers the State Government to reappoint, in exceptional cases in public interest, persons on the posts in technical field in service beyond 60 years. Accordingly, a proposal was prepared and submitted before the Cabinet of the State Government for the reappointment of respondent nos. 3 and 4. The Cabinet approved the proposal on 30. 9. 2008 and thereupon respondent nos. 3 and 4 were reappointed. The Screening Committee constituted for promotion has no role in case of reappointment. Therefore, to say that respondent nos. 3 and 4 were reappointed because of their political influence will be totally incorrect. They were, in fact, reappointed because of the exceptional situation created by the order dated 26. 9. 2008 of the High Court in public interest. The Screening Committee constituted for promotion has no role in case of reappointment. Therefore, to say that respondent nos. 3 and 4 were reappointed because of their political influence will be totally incorrect. They were, in fact, reappointed because of the exceptional situation created by the order dated 26. 9. 2008 of the High Court in public interest. Had the State Government really wanted to favour respondent nos. 3 and 4 it would not have fixed the meeting of Screening Committee for promotion immediately before the date of their retirement. Further, the allegation regarding use of political influence is too vague to be accepted. Merely because the representation of Dhanesh Chandra Saxena was rejected on 10. 11. 2008 the State Government could not have reduced the term of reappointment of respondent nos. 3 and 4 which is to expire on 31. 3. 2009. For these reasons, I find no illegality in the order of reappointment of respondent nos. 3 and 4. Lastly, the petitioner himself is retiring on 31. 3. 2009. Till then, the posts of Engineer-in-Chief are not vacant because of the reappointment of respondent nos. 3 and 4. No direction can, therefore, be issued to the State Government to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner. ( 5. ) IN the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.