Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Ramkumari Bharadwaj on 1 August, 2012
W.A.No.151/2012
State of M.P. & others Smt.Ramkumari Bharadwaj
1.8.2012
Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for appellants.
Shri Vivek Rusia, counsel for respondent.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 23.2.2011 in
W.P.No.3413/2005, by which the writ petition preferred by the
respondent against the order dated 9.3.2005, by which her promotion
order was cancelled was allowed and the order dated 9.3.2005 was
quashed on the ground that such an order was passed without
extending an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. This order is
under challenge in this petition.
This appeal is also barred by 290 days, for which the appellants
have moved another application I.A.No.1349/2012 seeking
condonation of delay.
Facts of the case are that the respondent was earlier working as
L.D.C., in the Land Records Department at Jabalpur. There she was promoted on 20.12.1985 as U.D.C., and thereafter she was transferred to Revenue Department and was posted at Katni. On 19.5.2004 she was promoted as Assistant Superintendent at District Office, Katni, where she joined on 26.5.2004 and thereafter vide order dated 9.3.2005 the order of promotion was cancelled by the Commissioner, Jabalpur without extending an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. This order dated 9.3.2005 was assailed before the Single Bench. On 20.3.2005 an ad-interim writ was issued and order dated 9.3.2005 was stayed by the High Court. Thereafter the matter was heard by the Single Bench. The Single Bench has found that the promotion order was passed by the appellants herein, but subsequently the order Annexure P-5, cancelling the promotion was issued without extending an opportunity of hearing to the respondent, was against the principles of natural justice and quashed the aforesaid order. This order is under challenge in this appeal.
W.A.No.151/2012State of M.P. & others Smt.Ramkumari Bharadwaj Learned counsel for appellants submitted that without absorption of respondent in the Revenue Department she was not entitled for promotion. The Commissioner, Jabalpur while passing the order dated 9.3.2005, cancelling the promotion also recommended the matter of respondent to the State Government for her absorption in the Revenue Department and after absorption she would be entitled for her due promotion.
We have examined the order passed by the Single Bench and record of the case and we find that that before passing order Annexure P-5, no opportunity was extended to the respondent and without such an opportunity if the order Annexure P-5 was passed and the learned Single Judge has quashed the aforesaid order because of violation of principles of natural justice, no fault is found. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for appellants was asked whether the respondent was instrumental for her promotion on 19.5.2004 or the promotion order was passed at the behest of respondent or on mis-representation of the respondent, it is stated that the promotion order was passed by Departmental Promotion Committee after examining the case and the respondent was not instrumental to the aforesaid order.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition, quashing the order Annexure P-5, which was passed without following the principles of natural justice. In the writ appeal, we do not find any merit for admission of the appeal. As we have already examined the merits of the case, it is not necessary for us to consider I.A.No.1349/2012, which is filed seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. In view of aforesaid, this writ appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) M. Judge Judge