Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Narayan Agrawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2017
WP-1407-2017
(SURESH NARAYAN AGRAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
07-03-2017
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Jamkhedkar, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner had obtained the B.Ed Degree in the year 1970 and is entitled for promotion on the post of Upper Division Teacher as per Policy of the State Government dated 6th January, 1968. It was further submitted that the controversy involved in the matter has been considered and decided by a Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No.6176 of 2003 (s) (Sultan khan Qureshi Vs. State of MP & Ors.) decided on 21.09.2005 and in W.P.No.6158 of 2011 (s) (Champalal Patel Vs. State of MP & Ors.) decided on 05.08.2011, so similar directions may also be issued in this petition. Learned Government Advocate does not oppose the aforesaid prayer.
In the matter of Chamapalal Patel (supra) considering the controversy, the learned Single Bench has held as under:
13. In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed, respondents are directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of UDT with effect from 06.01.1968 as per Policy and in consequent thereto reconsider his case for further promotion to the post of Head Master Middle School by the Review DPC and on found fit he be given notational promotion with retrospective date on both the posts and thereafter the post retiral and pensionary benefit be worked out and shall be paid within six months from the date of communication of this order. It is further made clear there that benefit of promotion as UDT under the policy dated 06.01.1968 be given with effect from the date of said policy, to those Assistant Teachers who had passed the graduate degree prior to commencement of the said policy, otherwise from the date of passing the graduation and having experience as per Para-2 of the Policy, but prior to commencement of the rules of 1973 i.e. the date of publication 19.10.1997, thereafter promotions of UDT and Head Master Middle School shall be governed by the rules of 1973. It is also made clear here that the cases disposed of by this Court in the light of the judgment of Murlidhar Neema (supra) and Mrs. Shobha Shekatkar (supra) be considered by the Government in the said perspective. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. In view of the aforesaid, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the observations as made herein above in the case of Sultankhan Qureshi (supra) and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within the period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order. It is further made clear here that if petitioner is found suitable, he may be given promotion as UDT w.e.f.
the date of passing of graduation in the year 1971 notionally. If it is found that the case of petitioner is not covered by the judgment of Sultankhan Qureshi (supra), a reasoned order be passed after giving him an opportunity of hearing.â As the facts of the case and prayer made by the petitioner are identical, hence, in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the matter of Champalal Patel (Supra), the present petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Certified copy, as per Rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE