Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 980 (MP)

Krishna Kumar Dwivedi v. State of M. P.

2016-11-03

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2016
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by respondent No.3 thereby cancelling the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Adhyapak to the post of Varishtha Adhyapak (Hindi). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II. The petitioner, thereafter, was promoted to the post of Adhyapak vide order dated 1.4.2007. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008. As per the said Rules, the petitioner is eligible for the promotion on the post of Varishtha Adhyapak (Hindi). For promotion on the said post a counselling was held and the name of the petitioner was at Sr.No.3 in the seniority list. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Varishtha Adhyapak (Hindi). Respondent No.5 whose name is placed at Sr. No.8 and the name of one Balmik Singh is placed at Sr.No.11. 3. The respondent No.5 has preferred an application challenging her non promotion on the post of Varishtha Adhyapak (Zoology) is arbitrary. In her complaint she further submitted that ignoring her seniority one Shri Balmik Singh was promoted on the post of Varishtha Adhyapak (Zoology). It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was not arrayed as respondent in the matter nor the petitioner was ever aware about the pendency of the appeal preferred by the respondent No.5. The petitioner was, thereafter, informed by the respondents about passing of the order dated 31.12.2015 whereby the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Varishtha Adhyapak was cancelled. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 have filed their reply and submits that while considering the appeal preferred by respondent No.5, respondent No.3 had considered all the aspects pertaining to the promotion made on the post of Varishtha Adhyapak. It has been stated that the proper procedure was not adopted by the DPC while considering the promotion of the petitioner. It is further being stated that the promotion of the petitioner is the void ab initio. 5. The respondent No.5 has also filed reply reiterating the same stands. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order dated 31.12.2015 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice. It is further being stated that the promotion of the petitioner is the void ab initio. 5. The respondent No.5 has also filed reply reiterating the same stands. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order dated 31.12.2015 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice. He further argues that the respondent No.5 is a candidate for promotion on the post of Varishtha Adhyapak (Zoology) and she has not made any complaint regarding the promotion of the petitioner. However, respondent No.3 without issuing any notice to the petitioner has cancelled the said promotion order. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the post on which the petitioner was promoted was not included in the counselling, however, it was subsequently included. They fairly admits that respondent No. 5 has not made any complaint regarding promotion of the petitioner. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned order passed by respondent No.3. 9. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, I found that the complaint which is made by respondent No.5 is not against the present petitioner, but against her non-promotion on the post of Varishtha Adhyapak (Zoology) and the petitioner belongs to the subject (Hindi). Her main complaint is against the promotion of Shri Balmik Singh who is junior to the petitioner and, therefore, respondent No. 3 should not have cancelled the promotion of the petitioner without giving any notice to the petitioner. 10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid submissions, I deem it proper to set aside the order dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure P-1). 11. Consequently, the order is set aside and the petition is allowed.