Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1219 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Savita Naulakha

2011-10-24

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2011
ORDER 1. By filing this intra Court appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam. 2005. the appellant/State has challenged the order dated 24.08.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (s) No. 1582/2005. 2. Briefly stated, the writ petitioner. who is working in the Irrigation Department of the State Government was granted annual increments but not from the date of initial appointment, but on the passing of Hindi typing Examination. Aggrieved he filed the writ petition. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the appellant herein to make payment of annual increments from the date of his initial appointment. It is this order, which is under challenge in this intra Court appeal by the State. 3. The learned Panel Lawyer for the State relied upon an order of the Division Bench passed in the case of State of M.P. v. Sushma Surana (WP No. 712/ 2000 decided on 10.3.2005). 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the recent judgment of this Court relating to the Irrigation Department itself, in which a view has been taken that the imposition of stipulation of passing of Hindi Typewriting Examination as prerequisite condition for release of increment, is not justified. He placed on record copy of the said order dated 23.06.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of state of' M.P. and another v. Onkarlal s/o Bisan Khande [ 2011 (III) MPWN 26 = 2011 (3) MPLJ 403 ]. He also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jageshwar v. State of M.P. [ 1982 MPWN 275 ]. 5. In the case of State of M:P. v. Onkarlal (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, after considering that the writ petitioner's appointment was under M.P. Irrigation Department (Non-gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1969. in which the criteria for recruitment on the post of Lower Division Clerk was passing of Matriculation or equivalent examination, held that in such circumstances passing of typing examination being not the essential qualification, the imposition of stipulation, as prerequisite condition for release of the annual increments, cannot he said to he Justified. in which the criteria for recruitment on the post of Lower Division Clerk was passing of Matriculation or equivalent examination, held that in such circumstances passing of typing examination being not the essential qualification, the imposition of stipulation, as prerequisite condition for release of the annual increments, cannot he said to he Justified. In the case of Jageshwar v. State of M.P. (supra), a Division Bench of this court has held that minimum qualification for appointment prescribed under the rules of recruitment cannot be changed by circular. 6. On going through the order passed in Writ Petition No. 712/2000 (state of M.P. v. Smt. Sushma Surana) , we find that the same is clearly distinguishahle on facts. Moreover, in that case, rules of recruitment were not taken into consideration. 7. In our considered view, the question involved in this case has already been considered and decided against the appellant in the case of Stat of M.P.v. Onkarlal (supra) and in the case of Jageshwar v. State of M.P. (supra) and there is no reason to take a different view. Thus. we find no force in this writ appeal. The writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. C.S. Ujjainia, Panel Lawyer for appellants: Shailendra Mukati for respondent.