Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hemant Bhoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2018

       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             1
            Hemant Bhoj vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
                                       W.P. No. 17403/2017

Gwalior dated 07.03.2018
      Shri Ankur Maheshwari, Advocate for the
petitioner.
      Shri N.S. Kirar, Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Since, common questions of law and facts are involved in this writ petition as well as in W.P. No. 18116/2017, therefore, with the consent of parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided finally by this common order. For the purpose of convenience facts mentioned in W.P. No 17403/2017 shall be taken into consideration.

In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of the application for Intra Local Body Absorption vide Annexure P/1.

Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Verg-1 on 18/08/2009 and he joined the services on 25/08/2009. After completion of three years' probation as per the circular of M.P. Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Condition of Services) Rules, 2008, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Varishtha Adhyapak and posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Sihor, Block Narwar, District Shivpuri (M.P.). On 10/07/2017, the respondents have issued a policy/circular for absorption of various persons posted in the Educational Institution HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 Hemant Bhoj vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

under the Adhyapak Samvarg called as Intra Local Body Absorption. In view of aforesaid policy/circular, the petitioner has applied for absorption and opted 11 options in other local bodies, wherein, he found himself to be fit for absorption under the policy. Since one of the option at serial No. 7, the petitioner was not granted preference since the same was not in consonance with the policy Annexure P/4, therefore, the option was illegal and the application was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

On the other hand, learned State counsel by filing reply and on the basis of instructions received from District Education Officer submits that the respondents are ready to consider the case of the petitioner on the other 10 options.

Without entering into the technicality and merit of the case and in view of the aforesaid statement given at Bar by learned State counsel for the respondents, no occasion arises for this Court to dwell upon the merits of the case and accordingly this petition is disposed of with the following directions :-

1. The competent authority of the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for rest of the options i.e. 10 options which the petitioner has opted and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 Hemant Bhoj vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

2. The aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed today.

3. Till consideration of the options given by the petitioner, no final list in view of policy (Annexure P/4) shall be published. Registry is directed to keep true copy of this order passed today in connected W.P. No. 18116/2017.

(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* Digitally signed by SANJAY N. DURGEKAR Date: 2018.03.08 15:25:04 +05'30'