Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2020
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 6325 of 2015
Parties Name Kamlesh Singh Baghel
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Dhagat
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of counsel for For petitioner : Shri Dileep Kumar
parties Pandey, Advocate.
For respondents/State : Shri Nikhil
Tiwari, Government Advocate.
Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (ORDER) 22.05.2020
1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging order dated 5/07/2013 and order dated 05/03/2012. By said orders, the representation of petitioner claiming salary was dismissed by the Commissioner Higher Education, Madhya Pradesh. By said orders, seniority of petitioner was disturbed and he was placed at Sr. No.6. The fresh appointment of petitioner was considered from 26/02/1998 and, therefore, petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 4 in the seniority and, therefore, he was not found eligible for payment of salary from grant-in-aid.
2. There are three sanctioned post in Department of Commerce but, four professors are working. Only three professors who are working on sanctioned post can be paid salary from grant-in-aid. Petitioner was put at Sr. No. 4 by the impugned orders, therefore, his claim for payment of salary from grant-in-aid was disallowed.
3. Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 05/03/2012 and 05/07/2013 passed by Commissioner Higher Education on the 2 ground that earlier he had filed a writ petition bearing No. 4386/1997. In the said writ petition, petitioner challenged order dated 10/10/1997, by which petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 4 in the seniority list. The Seniority list as per order dated 10/10/1997 was as under: -
1.Dr Vidyut Prakash Mishra.
2.Dr Rajesh Kumar Singh.
3.Prof. Nagendra Dubey.
4.Kamlesh Singh Baghel.
4. High Court vide its order dated 08/04/2010 quashed Annexure A/10. It was held in this writ petition that order dated 10/10/1997 placing petitioner at Sr. No. 4 is contrary to College Code 28. Clear directions were given by High Court to recast the seniority list as per College Code. It was also held that university cannot change seniority list sent by the Selection Committee. Merit list was prepared by Selection Committee on the basis of merit. Petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 2 by the Selection Committee and respondent No.6 and 7 were not found to be fit for selection but, High Court did not pass any order for their removal considering their long service and experience and also because petitioner namely Kamal Singh Baghel was unable to point out statutory breach in appointment of respondent No.6 and 7. Writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and respondents were directed to recast the seniority list. Thereafter, a notification was made on 2/11/2012, by which seniority list as prepared on 10/10/1997 was quashed and by order dated 21/07/2011 order was passed to amend the seniority list and petitioner's date of appointment as a Lecturer was taken to be 01/08/1986.
5. Respondents had filed their reply and averred that petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 20/11/1997. Said termination was challenged in WP No. 579 /1998. Termination 3 order was stayed by interim order dated 09/02/1998. Finally, petition was allowed and order of termination was quashed. Governing Body has given fresh appointment to petitioner vide order dated 26/02/1998. The seniority of petitioner was counted from 26/02/1998 and, therefore, he was placed at Sr. No. 4 and his representation has rightly been rejected vide orders dated 05/03/12 and 05/07/13 by the Commissioner Higher Education.
6. Considered the arguments raised by counsel for petitioner as well as respondents.
7. This Court in WP No. 4386/1997 has considered the issue of seniority of petitioner. It has been held by this Court that petitioner was wrongly placed at Sr. No. 4 vide order dated 10/10/1997. It has categorically been held that seniority list is prepared in violation to College Code 28. Annexure A/10 dated 10/10/97 was quashed by this Court and University was ordered to recast the seniority list. Order passed in WP No. 4386/1997 dated 08/04/2010 was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1119/2003. Writ appeal was dismissed by order dated 19/12/2013. Meanwhile, orders were passed on 27/07/2011 to amend the seniority list. University has amended the seniority list and petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 2. Respondents have filed incorrect reply to mislead this Court that petitioner was given fresh appointment from 26/02/1998. On perusal of Annexure R/5, it is clear that petitioner was allowed to join the college on this date because his order of termination dated 20/11/1997 was stayed in WP No. 579/1998 vide order dated 09/02/1998. Petitioner was not given fresh appointment from 26/02/1998 but authorities complied the stay order and allowed petitioner to join on the post.
48. Commissioner Higher Education committed an error in ignoring order dated 08/04/2010 passed in WP No. 4386/1997. Commissioner Higher Education also committed an error in holding that petitioner was given fresh appointment from 26/02/1998. The orders dated 05/07/2013 and order dated 05/03/2012 have been passed ignoring order passed in WP No.4386/1997 and drawing incorrect conclusion that petitioner was given fresh appointment vide order dated 26/02/1998.
9. In view of aforesaid findings arrived at by this Court, impugned order contained in Annexure P/9 dated 05/03/2012 and contained in Annexure P/10 dated 05/07/2013 is quashed. Commissioner Higher Education Madhya Pradesh is directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for payment of salary to petitioner from grant- in-aid from year 1997, as per the recast seniority list prepared in compliance of Court order dated 08/04/2010 in WP No. 4386/97.
10. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed reply to mislead this Court and respondent No.3 has also filed reply and averred in it that petitioner was reappointed on 26/02/1998. Reply filed by respondents No.1, 2 and 3 was supported by an affidavit. Looking to the incorrect averments made by such respondents, a cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed upon the respondent No.1 and 2 and cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed upon respondent No.3. Said cost will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within period of 30 days from receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
11. With aforesaid directions, writ petition is allowed and disposed off.
(Vishal Dhagat) Judge vkt VINOD KUMAR Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482002, st=Madhya Pradesh, TIWARI 2.5.4.20=c3a773822dd60058372dba984a8595fa556ca32 c10ef613cc76f9f59c60d4d85, cn=VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2020.05.22 16:46:38 +05'30'