Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Sunder Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 2441 of 2022
Between:-
1. RAM SUNDER DUBEY S/O SHRI S.M. DUBEY ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PROCESS SERVER NOWGAON DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JUNID KHAN S/O SHRI ABDUL RAHMAN
KHAN , AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PROCESS SERVER TEHSIL
CHHATARPUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JEETENDRA KUMAR SHRIVAS S/O SHRI
GANESH PRASAD SHRIVAS , AGED ABOUT 37
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: PROCESS SERVER
TEHSIL NOWGAON DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. JYOTI PRAVEEN VERMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF REVENUE COMMISSIONER REVENUE
DEPARTM ENT REVENUE BHAWAN ARERA
HILLS DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR CHHATARPUR DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI PRATYUSH SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner asking for direction to the respondent authority to consider the claim of the petitioners to be appointed against the post of Peon (Bhratya).
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2022.02.10 11:25:46 IST 2Counsel for the petitioners submits that Government has taken a decision for giving preference to the Process Server already working against the post of Peon and be appointed against 50% post which are said to be earmarked for those Process Server. However, I do not find any decision on the record of the Government resolving that Process Server shall be appointed on the post of Peon directly. Note-sheet i.e. Annexure P.1 indicates that preferences has to be given to the Process Server on the 50% earmarked post for them and selection process has to be conducted, in which they should be given preference in appointment. The petitioners are also relying upon the proceedings initiated by the authority for giving appointment to the Process Server, the name of the petitioners have also been included therein but that procedure is still under pipe-line and still final decision has not been taken.
As per the documents available on record the decision has to be taken by the Collector, District Chhatarpur. Therefore, I am of the considered view that this petition can be disposed of directing the Collector, Chhatarpur to take final decision in respect of appointing Process Server to the post of Peon in accordance with the policy of the State Government. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to in what manner appointments are to be made but the State Government has taken a decision to appoint Process Server against the vacant post of Peon, as per the policy for giving them preference.
Considering the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of directing the Collector, Chhatarpur to take final decision within a period of 60 days from the date of submitting the copy of this order taking note of circulars and the policies of the State Government framed from time to time in respect of appointment or giving preference to the Process Server against the post of Peon as indicated above that 50% post are earmarked for Process Server.
Signature Not Verified SAN(SANJAY DWIVEDI) Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2022.02.10 11:25:46 IST 3 JUDGE kkc Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2022.02.10 11:25:46 IST