Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 206 (MP)

A. K. Choubey v. State of M. P.

2012-02-15

RAJENDRA MENON, TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL

body2012
Judgment T.K. Kaushal, J.- This appeal has been preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 20.7.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No.63/2003 whereby the order dated 17.7.2003 Annexure P/10 issued by the respondent No.1 was quashed. 2. There is a dispute of inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees of finance services of the State. Their services are governed by Madhya Pradesh Accounts Services (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 1965 Rules'). The Cadre consists of three grades i.e. Junior Scale, Senior Scale and Selection Grade. The number of posts is increased from time to time by amending the rules. In Junior Scale ratio of direct recruits and promotees is 1:1. Fifty percent posts are earmarked for direct recruits and for promotees each. 3. Seniority list showing the position as on 1.4.1995 was challenged before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in O.A. No.954/1997. Vide order dated 20.7.2000 (Annexure A/1), the Department was directed to undertake the exercise of confirming the direct recruits as well as promotees as per the rules. In accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 1961 Rules'), on 14.9.2000 (Annexure P/7) a list of confirmation of 81 promotees was issued. To give effect to the directions of the Tribunal, a five member High Power Committee comprising of Senior Secretary of Finance Department headed by Chairman, M.P. Public Service Commission was constituted. 4. Problem began when the department issued an amended list of confirmation of employees on 25.6.2001 (Annexure P/8) relating to employees from Sr. No. 178 to 255. The High Power Committee vide resolution dated 3.1.2003 (Annexure R-2/3) endorsed the seniority assigned to the employees vide Annexure P/7. However, the department vide order dated 17.7.2003 (Annexure P/10) decided to assign seniority to the employees as per the amended seniority list Annexure P/8. In the writ petition, the aforesaid order dated 17.7.2003 (Annexure P/10) which was based on the order dated 25.6.2001 (Annexure P.8) was under challenge. 5. Perception and stand of the department is that the 1961 Rules are silent on inter-se seniority and the Tribunal has directed to decide the seniority as per the confirmation of employees of respective streams. In the writ petition, the aforesaid order dated 17.7.2003 (Annexure P/10) which was based on the order dated 25.6.2001 (Annexure P.8) was under challenge. 5. Perception and stand of the department is that the 1961 Rules are silent on inter-se seniority and the Tribunal has directed to decide the seniority as per the confirmation of employees of respective streams. In fact while maintaining the inter-se seniority, the department should maintain the ratio of 1:1 between the direct recruits and the promotees. It should also be kept in mind that seniority of direct recruited appointees on probation shall be counted from the date of initial appointment, unless the probation is not completed successfully during the original period of probation, and is extended. Promotees will get seniority only after their confirmation. 6. After taking into consideration the 1961 Rules, and the 1965 Rules, the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the factual situation, and the provision regarding inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees There was no reason for the department to amend the seniority vide order dated 25.6 2001 (Annexure P/8; Once an employee has been confirmed, there is no occasion to re-confirm him from a different date. It was a misconceived perception regarding directions of the Tribunal and the interpretation of the Rules. The Rules are amply clear regarding confirmation of direct recruits and promotees both. Hence, order dated 17.7.2003 Annexure P/10 has rightly been held unsustainable by the learned Single Judge. 7. Accordingly, there appears no substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.