Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Parmar vs State Of M.P. Through Department Of ... on 3 November, 2020
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20,
WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
W.P NO.14798/2020
Hariom Kachole s/o Kanhaiya lal Ji vs. State of M.P & others
W.P NO.15273/2020
Anandilal Ji Verma s/o Ramprashad Ji Verma vs. State of M.P
& others
W.P NO.15426/2020
Sanjay Dewda s/o Bharat Singh Ji Dewda vs. State of M.P &
others
W.P NO.15430/2020
R.C Verma s/o Kalyanprashad Ji vs. State of M.P & others
W.P NO.15437/2020
Hariom Sharma s/o Shankar Lal Ji Sharma vs. State of M.P &
others
W.P NO.15439/2020
Ashok Parmar s/o Ramesh Chand Parmar vs. State of M.P &
others
W.P NO.15440/2020
Bharat Singh Parihar s/o Jujhar Singh Parihar vs. State of
M.P & others
03.11.2020: (INDORE):
Shri Piyush Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video
conferencing.
-2- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20,
WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
issue involved in these writ petitions has already been
decided by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in
W.P.No.14632/20 & other connected petitions on
23.10.2020, therefore, these petitions be also disposed of in
the light of the said order.
The order passed in W.P.No.14632/20 dated
23.10.2020 reads as under:
ORDER
(Passed on 23rd October 2020) This order will govern the disposal of WP No.14632/2020, 14654/2020, 14689/2020, 14790/2020, 14791/2020, 14793/2020, 14795/2020, 14797/2020 & WP No.14802/2020 since it is jointly submitted by learned counsel for parties that all these writ petitions involve same issue on the identical fact situation. [2] These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 23rd September, 2020 whereby the charge of the Chief Municipal Officer has been taken from the petitioners and they have been posted to their substantive post of Accountant, Sanitary Inspector, Head Clerk-cum-Accountant, Assistant Grade I and II etc. [3] For convenience facts are taken from WP No.14632/2020.
[4] The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in the Municipal Council and was given the charge of the Chief Municipal Officer long back. Since then he is working as Chief Municipal Officer and the post of petitioner falls in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer, therefore, by the impugned order the charge of Chief Municipal Officer cannot be taken from the petitioner on the ground that the substantive post of the petitioner is not in the feeder cadre.
[5] Respondents have filed their reply taking the stand that the petitioner was only having the charge of the Chief Municipal Officer, therefore, no right was created in favour
-3- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 of the petitioner and that the substantive post of the petitioner is not in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer.
[6] Shri Peyush Jain, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer. He further submits that in terms of M.P. Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973, an employee of the Municipal Council having requisite experience and qualification is eligible for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer and the Rules do not restrict the feeder cadre to the Superintendent, Revenue Inspector or Revenue Sub Inspector only. He further submits that the similarly situated employees were earlier promoted as Chief Municipal Officer, therefore, the petitioners cannot be discriminated. He has also submitted that the judgment of the High Court on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed relates to employees working on different post, therefore, on that basis charge of the Chief Municipal Officer cannot be taken from the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners had earlier filed WP No.7592/2016 and by order dated 22/11/2016 (Annexure P/7) this Court had directed to decide the representation, but instead of deciding the representation the impugned order has been passed. Referring to the promotion orders dated 25/6/2020, 19/7/2019 and 3/8/2015 he has submitted that the ministerial employees have been promoted as Chief Municipal Officer, therefore, the same benefit should be extended to the petitioners also.
[7] Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Addl.Advocate General submits that under the amended Rules of 1973, the petitioners do not fall within the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer, therefore, they are not entitled to continue as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer in view of the earlier direction of this Court in WP No.5135/2012 and WP No.625/2015. He further submits that since the petitioners were only officiating the post as Chief Municipal Officer, therefore, they have no right to the said post and that the provisions relating to the feeder cadre contained in the Rules are to be given a purposive interpretation keeping in view the intention of the legislature, having due regard to the fact that interpretation may not lead to absurd result. He further submits that till now only the employees of the feeder cadre have been
-4- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 promoted and that there was some error in the order dated 26/9/2020 Annexure P/10 which has subsequently been corrected vide Annexure R/2 by recalling the order of posting in respect of ineligible person. He has also submitted that the promotion orders of other employees on which the petitioner is relying upon have been passed in the review DPC based upon the gradation list dated 1/1/2014 and if any petitioner comes forward demonstrating that on the basis of gradation list of 1/1/2014 any junior has been promoted ignoring his claim, then the respondents are ready to consider it. He has also submitted that the Madhya Pradesh State Urban Finance Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 has been framed in which the provision has been made for promotion of Accountant as Assistant Accounts Officer and that the channel of promotion to the post of Accountant is different. He has also submitted that prior to the amendment of 2015, employees of the Municipal Council with 10 years service were eligible, but after the amendment now the feeder cadre is different and that the respondents are filling up the post of Chief Municipal Officer by direct recruitment and thereafter if any posts remains vacant, then the same will be filled up by giving charge to other eligible persons. [8] I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
[9] It is undisputed before this Court that the substantive post of the petitioners is Accountant, Head Clerk-cum- Accountant, Assistant Grade I, Assistant Grade II etc and they are merely officiating on the post of Chief Municipal Officer, therefore, as such they have no legal right to continue on the said post unless they are able to demonstrate that the action of the State is arbitrary or discriminatory. [10] This Court in WP No.5135/2012 in the case of Sanjay Soni & ors. Vs. State of MP and Ors by the order dated 3/10/2013 had taken note of the fact that the employees holding post not falling in the feeder cadre are working as Incharge Municipal Officer, therefore, this Court had issued clear direction to ensure that in all such places where Chief Municipal Officer are posted in the Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat in incharge capacity, only those should be allowed to continue on the post who are holding substantive post which are in the feeder cadre for regular promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer. In the case of Sanjay Soni (supra) it was directed that:-
-5- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 "9- Admittedly the petitioners are working in the Executive services of the Municipal Councils. Their post is not included in the Second Schedule of 1973 Rules. They are not working on the feeder post to be considered for promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer in C category Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat. At any rate, they cannot be promoted on the said post. It has rightly been pointed out by learned Deputy Advocate General that separate channel of promotion is made available for Sanitary Inspectors and they can be promoted under the different Rules made in the year 2011, on the post of Health Officers but are not to be promoted on the post of Chief Municipal Officer at any rate. The petitioners are not working on a cadre post, which falls amongst the feeder posts for promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer. The reliance placed by the petitioners on circular dated 28.08.1991 is totally misconceived. As has been pointed out from Rule 5 of 1973 Rules, the enlargement of the feeder post, inclusion of certain more feeder posts without making an amendment in the 1973 Rules or the Schedule appended to the said Rules was not permissible even in exercise of administrative powers by the State Government. Such a circular will not give any benefit to the petitioners.
10. In the light of this, if the circular dated 04.02.2012 is examined, only this much is said that because of shortage of the Chief Municipal Officers, earlier action was taken to post certain persons as Incharge Chief Municipal Officers and that being so, when the entire Rules were examined by this Court in earlier writ petition and direction was given that the posts of Chief Municipal Officers are to be filled in by the respondents in accordance to the provisions of 1973 Rules, it was necessary to send back those, who were not appointed on the feeder post for promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer but were made to function as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer to their substantive posts. If such instructions have been issued on the strength of an order passed by this Court, which has attained finality, how could it be said that the circular issued by the State Government is illegal or runs contrary to
-6- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 the provisions of the Rules. In view of this, challenge to the circular dated 04.02.2012 is not acceptable.
11. Now the only question is whether the petitioners could be permitted any longer to continue on the post of Chief Municipal Officer in incharge capacity ? In accordance to the service laws and the well recognized principles, it is clear that an employee is entitled to hold his substantive post on which he is appointed in accordance to the Rules. No employee can claim a posting on a different post dehors the Rules. Even if such an improper order was earlier issued, the said order will not constitute a right in favour of such an employee to claim his posting in such capacity. Such directions cannot be issued as no right to the petitioners is available in such circumstances even in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. However, the grievance of the petitioners is also to be noted that such an order is issued only in respect of petitioners and in respect of few persons only whereas in the entire State large number of persons are working as Incharge Chief Municipal Officers, though they are not substantively holding the feeder post for their promotion on regular basis as Chief Municipal Officers.
12. Keeping in view these submissions and in view of the discussions made herein above, while dismissing the writ petition and vacating the interim stay, it is directed that the State Government will ensure that in all such places where the Chief Municipal Officers are posted in the Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats in Incharge capacity, only those would be allowed to continue on the post who are holding substantive posts, which are in feeder cadre for regular promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer. All others, who are not substantively holding the feeder post for promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer would be sent back to work on their substantive post forthwith."
[11] Similarly the issue again came up in WP No.625/2015 and this Court while passing the order dated 22/4/2015, after
-7- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 taking note of the relevant provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, had held that:-
"5. Looking to the aforesaid scheme of the Act, which is in fact, is in consonance to the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate as referred to hereinabove it is the statutory requirement of the State Government to make appointment/posting of Chief Municipal Officer in every Municipal Council from the date the State Municipal Service (Executive) was constituted by making the Rules.
6. The Rules prescribed the mode of recruitment of the Chief Municipal Officer in different grades of Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat. Classification of Chief Municipal Officers is also made. For appointment on the lowest category of Chief Municipal Officer, the provision is made to fill in 50% post by direct recruitment and 50% post by promotion of the Municipal employees serving in different Municipal Councils. Since the Rules are made under the provisions of the Act, they have the force of law and their violation is not permissible. Since the Chief Municipal Officer is required to discharge the statutory duty, only the competent persons are required to be appointed by both modes i.e. by direct recruitment and promotion. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others [2000 (2) MPLJ 530], has held that the Chief Municipal Officers are the holder of the civil post of the State. Thus, this is onerous responsibility of the respondents-State to see that the posts of Chief Municipal Officer are manned by competent persons and in any case the adhocism may not be resorted in the matter of posting of Chief Municipal Officer.
7. It appears that the State Government has failed to discharge its statutory obligation of making appointment of regular Chief Municipal Officer by direct recruitment or by promotion of municipal employees and this has resulted in giving current charge of the post of Chief Municipal Officer to the subordinate municipal employees. It is seen by this Court on various occasion that such powers of the Chief Municipal Officer are given to some Municipal employees who are not even eligible to be
-8- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 promoted/appointed on the post of Chief Municipal Officer in terms of the scheme of the Act and the Rules.
8. xxxxxxxxxxx
9. xxxxxxxxxxx
10. In view of the aforesaid, the order of posting of the petitioner as also the respondent No.3 both cannot be sustained in eye of law. Both the orders stand quashed. The petitioner and respondent No.3 would be posted on their substantive post in appropriate Municipal Council or Nagar Parishad as the case may be. The respondent No.1 will issue an order of giving current charge of the post of Chief Municipal Officer of Nagar Parishad, Birshingpur, District Satna, to the senior most Municipal employee, who is in the zone of consideration to be appointed on the post of Chief Municipal Officer, who will continue to function as such till the regular Chief Municipal Officer in terms of the statutory Rules is appointed and posted in the said place.
11. Let this order be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary of the State Government who will direct the concerned Secretary of the department to issue instructions in that respect and to withdraw the current charge of the post of Chief Municipal Officer from ineligible persons who are functioning as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer and will assign the charge of the said post to the concerned senior most Municipal employee, who is in the zone of consideration to be appointed on the post of Chief Municipal Officer. The State Government will ensure making of regular posting of the Chief Municipal Officer in every Municipal Council and Nagar Parishad within a period of six months from today."
[12] Hence, there was a clear mandate of this Court to withdraw the current charge of the post of Chief Municipal Officer from the ineligible persons who are functioning as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer and assign the charge of the post to the concerned senior most municipal employee who is in the zone of consideration for appointment on the post of Chief Municipal Officer.
-9- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 [13] The opening para of the impugned order dated 23/7/2020 in the present case reveals that the impugned order has been passed in pursuance to the directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions.
[14] This Court has already noted above that since the petitioners were only having the charge of Chief Municipal Officer and their substantive posts were different, therefore, they have no right to continue as Chief Municipal Officer. The matter does not rest here because the impugned order states that the post of the petitioners do not fall in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer. Hence, this Court is required to examine if the petitioner's substantive post is a feeder cadre post for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer. [15] There is no dispute between the parties that the appointment as Chief Municipal Officer is to be made in terms of the M.P. Municipal Service (Executive) Rules 1973 (for short "Rules of 1973"). The Rule 13 of the Rules of 1973 provides that the post of Chief Municipal Officer in Selection Grade, Class I, Class II and Class III shall be filled up by promotion as laid down in II Schedule. As per Schedule II, 50% post of Chief Municipal Officer is to be filled up by direct recruitment and remaining 50% by promotion. The aforesaid Rules have been amended vide Notification dated 10th April, 2015 and the English version of the amended Schedule II is as under:-
S.N Name of No. Classificatio Scale Mode of Minimu Miximu Posting Educational o Posts of n of Grade of pay Recruitmen m Age m Age qualification post t limit limit s for By for By directed Direct promotion prom recruitment recruit otion ment (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) 1 - - - - - - - - - - -
2 - - - - - - - - - - -
3 Chief 84 Class-I 15600 - 100 - - 1- Deputy - By
-10- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 Municipa - % Directorate-2 promoti l Officer 39100 (On on of (Class-A) - Deputation) Officer Grade of Chief pay 2. In Municip 6600 Divisional al Office-01 Officer Class-B, and
3. SUDA-50 Revenue Officer
4. In of class Municipal AA, or Council class A (above 1 Municip lakh al Populat Council ion) -19 having at least 5 years 5-. Deputy experien Commissione ce of the r and reserve respectiv in Municipal e post.
Corporation-
124. Chief 107 Class-II 15600 50% 50 21 Years 40 1. Asst. Graduate By Municipa - % Director In of a promoti l Office Years Director ate- Recognize on of 39100 8 (On d Officer (ClassB) - Deputation) University of Chief Grade Municip pay 2. In al 5400 Divisional Officer Office-5 of Class-
C, and Revenue
3. In inspecto Municipal rs of Council class (below 1 lakh AA, A Populat and class B ion)-78 Municip al Council
4. Asst.
having Commissione at least r and reserve years in Municipal experien Corporation-
ce of the 16 respectiv e post.
5. Chief 267 Class-III 9300- 50% 50 21 Years 40 Years 1. Municipal Graduate By Municipa % Council-257 of a promoti l 34800 Recognize on of Officer(C - 2. Reserve-10 d Superint lass-C) University endent of Class-
Grade A
pay Municip
3600 al
Council,
Revenue
Inspecto
rs and
Revenue
-11- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 sub Inspecto rs of class C Municip al Council and employe e of the Municip al Council having at least 5 years experien ce of the respectiv e post.
[16] Since there is some dispute in respect of the reading of these Rules, therefore, the Hindi version of the amended Schedule II is also reproduced as under:-
f}rh; vuqlwph ¿fu;e 5 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ dk [k.M ¼x½ nsf[k,À vuq inksa ds uke inksa xzsM dk osreku HkrhZ dk rjhdk inLFkkiuk 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk,a dh oxhZdj.k la[;k dzekad &&&&&&&&& lh/kh inks=fr lh/kh inks=fr HkrhZ ds ds fy, U;wure vf/kdr vk;q e vk;q HkrhZ }kjk lhkek lhek fy, }kjk ¼1½ ¼2½ ¼3½ ¼4½ ¼5½ ¼6½ ¼7½ ¼8½ ¼9½ ¼10½ ¼11½ ¼12½ 1 & & & & & & & & & & & 2 & & & & & & & & & & & 3 eq[; 84 izFke 15600 & 100 & & 1-lpkyuky; & lacaf/kr in dk uxjikfydk Js.kh ls izfr'kr esa mi de ls de 5 vf/kdkjh 39100 lapkyd&2 o"kZ dk vuqHko xzsM j[kus okys eq[;
osru ¼izfrfu;qfDr
¼oxZ&d½ 6600
uxjikfydk
ij½ vf/kdkjh oxZ
&[k ds
vf/kdkfj;ksa
2- laHkkxh; rFkk dd
dk;kZy; vFkok d Js.kh
esa&01 dh uxj
ikfydk ifj"kn~
3- ftyk 'k- ds jktLo
-12- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 fo- vfHk-&50 vf/kdkfj;ksa ds inks=fr }kjk 4- uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~ esa ¼1 yk[k ls vf/kd tula[;k½&19 5- mik;qDr rFkk uxj fuxe esa vkjf{kr&12 4 eq[; 107 f}rh; 15600 50 50 21 o"kZ 40 Ok"kZ 1- lapkyuky; ekU;rk lacaf/kr in uxjikfydk Js.kh ls izfr izfr'kr esa lgk;d dk de ls vf/kdkjh 39100 lapkyd&8 izkIr de 5 o"kZ dk xzsM 'kr vuqHko j[kus ¼oxZ&[k½ osru 2- laHkkxh; fo'ofo| okys eq[;
5400 dk;kZy; esa&5 ky; uxjikfydk dk vf/kdkjh Lukrd oxZ&x ds 3- uxjikfydk vf/kdkfj;ksa ifj"kn~ ¼1 rFkk dd] d yk[k ls de½ rFkk [k Js.kh tula[;k&78 dh uxj ikfydk 4- uxj fuxe ifj"kn~ ds esa lgk;d jktLo vk;qDr fujh{kd dh vkjf{kr&16 inks=fr }kjk-
5 eq[; 267 r`rh; 9300 50 50 21 o"kZ 40 o"kZ 1- uxj ekU;rk d Js.kh dh
uxjikfydk Js.kh` ls izfr'k izfr'kr ikfydk uxj ikfydk
vf/kdkjh 34800 r ijf"kn~&257 ifj"kn~ ds
izkIr
¼oxZ&x½ v/kh{kd] x
xzsM Js.kh dh uxj
osru fo'ofo| ikfydk ifj"kn~
3600 ky; ds jktLo
dk fujh{kdksa rFkk
2- Lukrd jktLo mi
vkjf{kr&10 fujh{kdksa rFkk
lacaf/kr in dk
de ls de 5
o"kZ dk vuqHko
j[kus okys uxj
ikfydk ifj"kn~
ds deZpkfj;ksa
dh inks=fr }
kjk-
[17] A fair reading of the amended Rules reveals that the following employees are eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer Class A, Class B and Class C. [A] Chief Municipal Officer Class A-- (i) Chief Municipal Officer Class B; (ii) Revenue Officer of Class AA and A Municipal Council.
The above officers should have atleast five years experience on their post.
-13- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 [B] Chief Municipal Officer Class B-- (i) Chief Municipal Officer Class C; (ii) Revenue Inspector of Class AA, A and B Municipal Council.
The above officers should have atleast five years experience on their post.
[C] Chief Municipal Officer (Class C)-- (i) Superintendent of Class A Municipal Council; (ii) Revenue Inspector of Class C Municipal Council; (iii) Revenue Sub Inspector of Class C Municipal Council; [iv] Employees of the Municipal Corporation having atleast five years experience of above post.
[18] So far as feeder cader for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer Class A and B is concerned, the Column 12 of Schedule is very clear only Chief Municipal Officers and Revenue Inspector/Sub Inspector mentioned therein are eligible. The main dispute is in respect of the feeder cadre for the post of Chief Municipal Officer Class C because in Column 12 it is mentioned that "employee of the Municipal Council having atleast five years experience of the respective post". "Respective post" in above expression means posts mentioned in the preceding part of the same sentence i.e. Superintendent Class A Municipal Council and Revenue Inspector/Sub Inspector of Class B Municipal Council. This position is clearly reflected in the Hindi version of the Rules. If petitioner's contention that above expression means any employee of Municipal Council having experience on his post is accepted, then such an interpretation would lead to absurd result as even a Peon having graduate degree with five years experience as peon will become eligible for appointment to the post of Chief Municipal Officer. That is not the intention of the Ruls. The Rule is required to be interpreted keeping in view the object that a person competent to discharge the duties attached to the post and having sufficient experience is appointed.
[19] Having regard to above legal position and keeping in view the expressed language of column 12 of the Schedule, it is held that the Superintendent of Class A Municipal Council and Revenue Inspector/Revenue Sub Inspector Class C Municipal Council and also any employee of Municipal Council who has five years experience of the above post of Superintendent and Revenue Inspector/Sub Inspector is eligible for promotion as Chief Municipal Officer Class C.
-14- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 [20] Counsel for the State has pointed out that in terms of Sec.86 of the Municipalities Act, vide notification dated 6/8/2014, five different services namely State Administrative Service, Urban Sanitary Service, Engineering Service, Finance Service and Revenue Service have been constituted. The State has also framed Rules in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.355 read with Sec.86 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 by the name of Madhya Pradesh State Urban Finance Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2017 constituting State Urban Finance Service. In terms of Schedule IV, the Accountants are eligible for promotion as Assistant Accounts Officers, therefore, separate channel for promotion has been provided for the Accountant. [21] Though counsel for petitioner has referred to the promotion orders dated 25/6/2020, 19/7/2019 and 3/8/2015 in support of his plea that ministerial employees have been promoted as Chief Municipal Officer, but he has failed to point out any material to controvert the plea of the counsel for State that those promotions were made under the unamended Rules on the basis of the seniority list existing as on 1/1/2014 and error in the order dated 26/9/2020 has been corrected by issuing Annexure R/1.
[22] In view of the above analysis, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with following directions:-
(i) Challenge to the impugned order dated 23/10/2020 is found to be devoid of any merit.
(ii) If any of the petitioner raises an issue about his/her eligibility for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer or the issue that his/her post falls in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer, then the competent authority will decide that issue in the light of the conclusion drawn by this court in this order about the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer.
(iii) The respondents are directed to make regular appointment to the post of Chief Municipal Officer by direct recruitment/promotion as per Rules without any unnecessary delay.
(iv) if for any reason the charge of Chief Municipal Officer is required to be given on account of administrative exigency to the officer/employee of the feeder cadre to that post then the same will be done
-15- WP No.14798/20, WP No.15273/20, WP No.15426/20, WP No.15430/20, WP No.15437/20, WP No.15439/20 & WP No.15440/20 having due regard to the directions already issued in WP No.5135/2012 and WP No.652/2015.
In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of in terms of the order dated 23.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.14632/2020 which shall apply mutatis muntandis in these petitions.
C.c as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair hk/ Date: 2020.11.04 15:37:33 +05'30'