Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1323 (MP)

Sudeep Begi v. State of M. P.

2013-10-30

RAJENDRA MENON

body2013
Judgment: Rajendra Menon, J.;— 1. Similar claim made by a co-employee Virendra Singh Rajput Vs. The State of M.P. & Others in W.P. No. 17359/2012 has been disposed of by this Court after taking note of the grievance of the petitioner, the objection filed by the State Government and the averments made in the return. After hearing parties concerned, the case of Virendra Singh Rajput (supra) has been decided in the following manner:- 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it is clear that the respondents themselves have misconstrued the provisions of the new GOP. First of all it has to be seen that the examination according to the respondents on 08.04.2012 of which the result was to be published on 10.04.2012. The GOP was issued by the respondents on 14.08.2012 that is much after the completion of the process of conducting examination, therefore, the provisions of GOP No. 138/12 which was not made with retrospective effect would not govern the field for promotion of the Constable as Head Constable through the Limited Competitive Examination. It is the settled law if the recruitment process is started under the relevant Rules which were in vogue at the relevant time, the same has to be completed under the Rules even if the new Rules are framed subsequently. This particular aspect is considered by the Apex Court in the case of A.A. Calton, Vs. Director of Education and another, AIR 1983 SC 1143 , and it has been categorically held that such process of recruitment is to be completed under the prevalent Rules when it was started. In the case of Vice-Chancellor, M.D. University Rohtak Vs. Jahan Singh, 2007 (5) SCC 77 , the Apex Court has held that the retrospective operation of a Rule cannot be made unless specifically spelled out in the Rules itself. The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and if such a consideration is done in the empanelment of the employee, the said panel is remained in operation till it is exhausted. 5. Further it is to be seen from the GOP No. 138/12 said to be issued on 14.08.2012 that the select list prepared under the earlier GOPs which were superseded if was not completed, was to remain in force. For the said purposes, the specific condition mentioned in the GOP is reproduced:- 6. 5. Further it is to be seen from the GOP No. 138/12 said to be issued on 14.08.2012 that the select list prepared under the earlier GOPs which were superseded if was not completed, was to remain in force. For the said purposes, the specific condition mentioned in the GOP is reproduced:- 6. No doubt is left from such a declaration made in the GOP itself, therefore, the action on the part of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for his posting on promotion as Head Constable only because of the coming into force of new GOP of 2012 is not justified. This Court has dealt with such a situation in the case of Laxminarayan Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Others, W.P. No. 9764/2012, decided on 12th July, 2013. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has given the finding on the basis of GOP itself referred to hereinabove in the following manner:- Keeping in view the reply filed by the respondents and the fact that in the GOP issued on 14.08.12 it was made clear that the fit list issued under the previous GOP shall remain in force, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a short direction that upon production of copy of the order passed by this Court, the respondents shall take action to fill up the vacancy on the basis of fit list, which were issued under the earlier GOP as the same remain in force inspite of notification of GOP dated 14.08.12. Needful be done within a period of two months by passing a reasoned order, from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 7. In view of these findings, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be denied. In view of this, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that they will take action to fill up the vacancy on the basis of the fit list in which the name of the petitioner was enlisted, issued under the earlier GOP as the same is to remain in force despite the GOP No. 138/12. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and benefit of enlistment of the petitioner in the fit list be granted to him within the aforesaid period. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and benefit of enlistment of the petitioner in the fit list be granted to him within the aforesaid period. In any case, if it is found that the petitioner is not to be promoted because of any reason mentioned in the earlier GOP, a reasoned order be passed and communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Having considered the rival contentions made before me it is seen that this case is also squarely covered by the order passed in the case of Virendra Singh Rajput (supra)). 2. Accordingly, this petition is also allowed in identical terms. Claim of the petitioners be also considered and decided as already directed by this Court in the case of Virendra Singh Rajput (supra) within the time stipulated therein. 3. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.