Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 838 (MP)

Ramsiya Dohare v. State of M. P.

2017-07-18

ANAND PATHAK

body2017
ORDER 1. The present petition has been preferred by petitioner against the order dated 2.7.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby respondent No.2 has turned down the claim of the petitioner while coming to the conclusion that petitioner is not in possession of requisite qualification for the post of Lab Technician which according to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, this petition. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, M.P. Junior Selection Board issued an advertisement on the basis of eligibility criteria as fixed by them and in response to the same, petitioner got selected under the Scheduled Caste category and given appointment as Laboratory Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.950-1530 vide appointment order dated 30.11.1990 (Annexure P-4). The person who was below in the merit vis-a-vis petitioner under the Scheduled Caste category also got appointment in the pay scale of Rs.1,200/- - 2,040/- vide order dated 10.1.1991 whereas petitioner was given pay scale of Rs. 950/- -1,530/- which was the bone of contention for the parties and precipitated the filing of the present petition as such anomalous situation was resisted by the petitioner. Matter went before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal and later on after its abolition, it came before this Court and vide order dated 22.10.2009 passed in bunch of writ petitions (petition of the present petitioner was Writ Petition No.4249/2003) and after considering due submissions advanced by the parties, this Court concluded that once a policy decision has been taken by the State Government that the post of Laboratory Assistant has to be redesignated as the Laboratory Technician, the benefit should have been extended to the petitioner as the similar benefit of re-designation in the School Education Department has been granted in respect of post of Laboratory Assistant. 3. Petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed. Respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders in respect of conferring benefit of re-designation as per the policy of the State Government dated 29th April, 1990 with other directions. 4. The said order dated 22.10.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4249/2003 and Writ Petition No. 4352/2003 was put to challenge by the State Government before the Hon'ble apex Court but same got dismissed vide order dated 14.1.2013 in SLP No. 19130/2011. 4. The said order dated 22.10.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4249/2003 and Writ Petition No. 4352/2003 was put to challenge by the State Government before the Hon'ble apex Court but same got dismissed vide order dated 14.1.2013 in SLP No. 19130/2011. In pursuance to the said order, authorities have considered the case of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 2.7.2013 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner does not possess requisite qualification of graduation and therefore, he could not be given benefit of Assistant Teacher (Science) as some other persons have been given. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State through its reply resisted the claim made by petitioner on the basis of inadequacy of qualification of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not entitled for the relief. According to learned counsel for the State, petitioner is not a Science graduate and does not hold requisite educational qualification of B.Sc. Therefore, he could not be given benefit of pay scale Rs.1,200/- -2,040/-. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended to the petition. 7. Controversy in question has earlier been decided by this Court while passing the order dated 22.10.2009 in Writ Petition No.4249/2003 and Writ Petition No. 4352/2003. In the said petitions, from perusal of the order, it appears that respondents have taken the same stand as been taken by them in the present petition. The stand of the State Government was that petitioner does not possess requisite qualification of Graduation (Science) so as to give him the benefit of pay scale Rs.1,200/- -2,040/-. After considering submissions, Court has categorically given its finding that petitioner and other similarly situated persons have been appointed from the same selection process wherein petitioner finds place at S.No. 3 of the scheduled caste category candidates and other persons who were granted benefit of higher pay scale were much below in the merit list vis-a-vis petitioner. Therefore, considering the said fact situation, passed the order in detail. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below :- “6. In the present case, an advertisement was issued by the State Government inviting applications for the post of Laboratory Assistant …........(inlegible)....... declared as successful in the process of selection. It is also an admitted fact that the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below :- “6. In the present case, an advertisement was issued by the State Government inviting applications for the post of Laboratory Assistant …........(inlegible)....... declared as successful in the process of selection. It is also an admitted fact that the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 3 of the scheduled category candidates and his name was forwarded to the Technical Education Department. Petitioner has filed an order, (Annexure A-10) dated 29th April, 1990 wherein the State Government has taken a policy decision to re-designate the Laboratory Assistants working in various engineering and technical colleges as Laboratory Technician. This benefit has not been extended to the petitioner as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Not only this, the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, provides for a two-tier pay scale in the case of Laboratory Technician i.e. Rs.1,200/- -1,800/- and Rs. 1200/- -1,840/- with effect from 1st April, 1987. Not only this, the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, further provides the revised pay scale as Rs. 1200/- -2040/- subject to fulfilling certain qualifications. The case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents as per the revision of pay rules, i.e., Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 for grant of higher pay scale. Not only this, as stated by the petitioner, the petitioner is still languishing as Laboratory Assistant right from inception in the service. Once a policy decision has been taken by the State Government that the post of Laboratory Assistant has to be redesignated as the Laboratory Technician, the benefit should have been extended to the petitioner as the similar benefit of re-designation in the School Education Department has been granted in respect of the post of Laboratory Assistant. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed with a direction to the respondents to confer the benefit of re-designation and the benefit of pay scale as per the notification dated 29th April, 1990 (Annexure A-10) to the petitioner. Not only this, revision of pay of the petitioner has to be reconsidered for grant of revised pay scale under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 1990. Not only this, revision of pay of the petitioner has to be reconsidered for grant of revised pay scale under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 1990. The respondents shall alo consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale of Rs.1,200/- - 2,040/- as per the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 1990 (Annexure R-1).” 8. Therefore, once this Court has given specific finding in respect of the educational qualification and standing in the merit list then respondent cannot take shelter of the same pleadings for denial of the benefits to the petitioner. 9. Interestingly, more so when SLP preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the apex Court, thus confirmed the order passed by this Court. Lame excuse has been given by the respondents in the impugned order regarding opinion taken from the law office. Perusal of the impugned order reflects that no objective consideration has been made by the respondent and have again passed the order in a slipshod manner, same is arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner deserves the benefit as earlier granted by this Court in earlier round of litigation which attained finality up till apex Court. 10. Resultantly, order dated 2.7.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 Director, Technical Education , M.P. is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and extend the benefits as per issue already settled in Writ Petition No.4249/2003 vide order dated 22.10.2009 with further direction to fix the pay scale (corresponding pay scale/ revised pay scale) along with other consequential benefits as per accrual of legitimate claim. Necessary exercise be completed by the respondents within period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. 11. Petition stands allowed.