Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 489 (MP)

Arvind Sharma v. State of M. P.

2021-06-07

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2021
ORDER 1. In the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.9.2013 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 30.12.20213 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2, whereby option exercised by the petitioner for inclusion of his name in “Group-B” seniority list has been rejected on the ground that option was submitted after cut of date i.e. 25.9.2007. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Engineer on daily wages w.e.f 23.3.1987. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 30.10.1991 as Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Public Health Engineering Department. On 24.2.2000 petitioner was granted permission for pursuing the part time B.E. Degree course. The petitioner got admitted as a part time student in B.E. Course at MITS, Gwalior (M.P.). He completed B.E. Degree (Civil) in the year 2005. In the year 2007, Recruitment Rules were amended in which provision with respect to “Group-A” and “Group-B” seniority list was prepared. According to the amended Recruitment Rules and on completion of the degree course, petitioner exercised the option and the same was forwarded. As per the rules, such persons who have acquired B.E. Degree Course to be placed in “Group-B” seniority list. Thereafter, the employee was required to submit his option up to 25.9.2007 for inclusion of his name in the seniority list in “Group-A” and “GroupB”. Petitioner again submitted his option on 21.9.2007 for inclusion of his name in the “Group-B” seniority list. On 22.9.2007, the Executive Engineer forwarded the name and option of the petitioner to the Chief Engineer. Alongwith name of the petitioner, name of one Shri K.G. Saxena was also recommended. However, name of Shri Saxena was included in “Group-B” seniority list but name of the petitioner could not be included in the seniority list on the ground that option was submitted after the cut of date i.e.25.9.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 30.9.2013 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 30.12.20213 (Annexure P-2) are absolutely illegal, therefore, liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that petitioner submitted option on 21.9.2007 which is evident from (Annexure P-7). According to (Annexure P-8) dated 22.9.2007, the Executive Engineer had forwarded his option to the Chief Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that petitioner submitted option on 21.9.2007 which is evident from (Annexure P-7). According to (Annexure P-8) dated 22.9.2007, the Executive Engineer had forwarded his option to the Chief Engineer. It is submitted that petitioner can not be penalized for the mistake committed by the respondents. According to the letter dated 25.6.2013 (Annexure P-9) issued by the Chief Engineer PHE Gwalior to the Engineer in Chief, Bhopal, the mistake has been categorically admitted by the respondents. In such circumstances, the respondents may be directed to redraw the seniority list of “Group-B” and place the petitioner at the appropriate place/seniority. 4. On the other hand, return has been filed by the State. Counsel for the respondent-State submitted that option was to be exercised on or before 25.9.2007 whereas petitioner failed to submit the option within the time. So far as, similarly situated persons are concerned, their representations were made in time and accepted, therefore, their names have been included in the seniority list in “Group-B”. The petition is bereft of merit and substance and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. On going through Annexure P-7 dated 21.9.2007, it is as clear as day light that the petitioner had submitted his option in time. The letter also bears receipt of the same. The Executive Engineer vide letter dated 22.9.2007 (Annexure P-8) had already forwarded the application to the Engineer in Chief, Bhopal (M.P.). Thereafter, vide letter dated 25.6.2013 (Annexure P-9) the Chief Engineer has admitted the mistake that for some reasons option could not be forwarded, therefore, name of the petitioner may be included in the seniority list of “Group-B” granting him seniority from June, 2005. Thereafter, vide letter dated 25.6.2013 (Annexure P-9) the Chief Engineer has admitted the mistake that for some reasons option could not be forwarded, therefore, name of the petitioner may be included in the seniority list of “Group-B” granting him seniority from June, 2005. The contents of letter dated 25.6.2013 (Annexure P-9) is reproduced for the purpose of convenience :- dk;kZy; eq[; vfHk;ark yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh; foHkkx Xokfy;j ifj{ks=] Xokfy;j Øekad 3135@LFkk@eq-v-@yks-Lok-;ka-fo-@2013 Xokfy;j fnukad 25-6-2013 izfr] izeq[k vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh; foHkkx] lriqMk Hkou Hkksiky e-iz fo"k;&mia=h laoxZ ^^c^^ esa Lukrd mi;a=h dh ofj"Brk lwph esa uke tksMuss ckcr~A lanHkZ& v/kh{k.k ;a=h yks-Lok-;k-fo Xokfy;j e.My Xokfy;j dk i= Øekad 3278@ fnukad 24-6-2013- mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr i= }kjk v/kh{k.k ;a=h yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh foHkkx Xokfy;j e.My Xokfy;j us Jh vjfoUn 'kekZ] mi;a=h yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh mi[k.M xksj[kh Xokfy;j dks muds }kjk va'kdkyhu ch-bZ- ¼flfoy½ fMxzh mRrh.kZ ekg twu 2005 ls Lukrd mi;a=h lewg ^^c^^ dh ofj"Brk lwph esa uke tksM+us gsrq vuq'kalk lfgr bl dk;kZy; dks Hkstk x;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd Jh vjfoUn 'kekZ] mi;a=h dh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 20-11-1991 gSA budks bl dk;kZy; ds i= Øekad 823@LFkk-@ fnukad 24-2-2000 }kjk va'kdkyhu ch-bZ ¼flfoy½ djus dh vuqefr iznku dh xbZ Fkh buds }kjk ekg twu 2005 esa va'kdkyhu ch-bZ ¼flfoy½ dh fMxzh mÙkh.kZ dh xbZ] ftldh izfof"V lsok iqfLrdk esa dh xbZ gS] lsok iqfLrdk ds lR;kfir i`"B dh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA Jh 'kekZ }kjk fnukad 21-9-2007 dks Lukrd mi;a=h dh ofj"Brk lwph esa uke lfEefyr fd, tkus gsrq fodYi rRdkyhu dk;Zikyu ;a=h yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh [k.M Xokfy;j dks izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ftls dk;Zikyu ;a=h ds i= dzekad&4330@LFkk-@fnukad 22-9-2007 }kjk bl dk;kZy; dks Jh ds-th- lDlsuk mi;a=h ds fodYi lfgr Hkstk x;k FkkA bl i= dh izfrfyfi vkidh vksj lwpukFkZ i`"Bkafdr dh xbZ FkhA fdUgh dkj.ko'k bl dk;kZy; ls Jh vjfoUn 'kekZ dk fodYi vkidh vksj izsf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldkA vr% v/kh{k.k ;a=h ls izkIr lanfHkZr vkosnu i= dks ewyr% vkidh vksj layXu izsf"kr dj Jh vjfoUn 'kekZ mi;a=h dk uke mi;a=h laoxZ dh ofj"Brk lwph lewg ^^c^^ ¼fMxzh/kkjh mi;a=h½ esa ekg twu 2005 ls tksMs tkus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA layXu% mijksDrkuqlkj eq[; vfHk;Urk yksd LokLFk; ;kaf=dh; foHkkx Xokfy;j ifj{ks=] Xokfy;j e-iz- 7. From the aforesaid letter, it is clear that petitioner had submitted option within time and respondents were obliged to consider the same and incorporate the name of the petitioner at the appropriate place in the seniority list at “Group-B”. 8. Accordingly, respondents are directed to redraw the seniority list of Group-B, so far as the petitioner is concerned and place name of the petitioner at the appropriate place from the date of his entitlement. The said exercise be completed within the period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 9. It is made clear that petitioner shall also be entitled for consequential benefits, if any, after correction in the seniority list. 10. The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 11. No order as to cost.