Madhya Pradesh High Court
Wilson Joy Lakra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2021
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
Writ Petition No.16926/2021
(Wilson Joy Lakra & others Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Jabalpur, Dated : 25.10.2021.
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Smt. Vasundara Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondents/State.
Shri V. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Petitioners, who are reserved category candidates
working in the respondents/department are aggrieved by
non-consideration of the promotion from the post of
Assistant Engineer (Generation) to the post of Executive
Engineer (Generation).
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners were under the zone of
consideration, as they fulfilled the requisite condition of
five years of regular service on the post of Assistant
Engineer, however, the respondents have totally stopped
promotion in the light of earlier decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court. It is submitted that recently the Supreme
Court in SLP No.30621/2011 has passed an order on
17.5.2018, wherein it is directed that the pendency of this
Special Leave Petition shall not stand in the way of Union
of India taking steps for the purpose of promotion from
'reserved to reserved' and 'unreserved to unreserved' and
also in the matter of promotion on merits.
2
Similarly, in the matter related to SLP (C)
No.31288/2017, connected to Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.28306/2017, the following direction has been passed
on 5.6.2018:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned
ASG has referred to order dated 17.5.2018 in SLP
(C) No.30621/2011. It is made clear that the Union
of India is not debarred from making promotions in
accordance with law, subject to further orders,
pending further consideration of the matter. Tag to
SLP (C) No.30621 of 2011."
It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Union of India on the basis of these
directions of the Supreme Court has issued Office
Memorandum on 15.6.2018, which is reproduced as
under:-
"F.No.36012/11/2016-Estt.(Res-I){Pt-II}
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
Establishment (Reservation-I) Section
*****
North Block, New Delhi Dated June 15, 2018 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Implementation of interim Orders/ directions in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.30621/2011 arising out of final judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 in CWP No.13218/2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Special Leave to Appeal © No.31288/2017 arising out of Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment dated 23.08.2017 and other related court cases- regarding 3 **** The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 15.11.2007 in SLP (C) No.28306/2017 has decided to refer to a Constitution Bench to examine whether its earlier decision in M. Nagraj and others Vs. Union of India and others requires reconsideration or not, inter alia, on the issue as to whether test of backwardness would, at all, apply in case of SC and ST.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.30621/2011 has passed the following order on 17.05.2018:
"It is directed that the pendency of this Special Leave Petition shall not stand in the way of Union of India taking steps for the purpose of promotion from 'reserved to reserved' and 'unreserved to unreserved' and also in the matter of promotion on merits ................"
3. Further, in the matter related to SLP (C) No.31288/2017, connected to Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.28306/2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under
on 05.06.2018:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned ASG has referred to order dated 17.05.2018 in SLP (C) No.30621/2011. It is made clear that the Union of India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter. Tag to SLP © No.30621 of 2011."
4. The cadre controlling authorities of Central Government Ministries, Departments and Union Territories are to carry out promotions in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 above based on existing seniority/ select lists.
5. Every promotion order must clearly mention the stipulation that the promotion shall be subject to further orders which may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. All Ministries/ Departments are requested to bring this to the notice of all concerned for information/ compliance.
7. State Governments are also advised to take necessary action in accordance with the above mentioned orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(G. Srinivasan) Deputy Secretary to the 4 Government of India Tel. : 23093074."
It is further pointed out that relying upon the said Office Memorandum and the directions of the Supreme Court, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Chaturvedi Vs. State of MP & others (WP No.13241/2017), decided on 16.4.2019 has passed the following directions:-
"12. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company (supra) and also Ram Sawrup Saroj (supra) and further clarification made by the Government of India vide its Office Memorandum dated 15th June, 2018 and further by this High Court in the case of Kushal Singh (supra), the order impugned is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to issue the order of promotion in favour of the petitioner considering the then existing available vacancies as pointed out by the petitioner in his representation of the post of Additional Director. Such exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order."
It is further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Naresh Sharma Vs. State of MP and another, (WP No.8474/2019) decided on 17.6.2019, has again directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order without influencing with the order of status-quo passed in pending SLP No.13954/2016 in the case of State of MP Vs. R.B. Rai and others.
5It is submitted that the petitioners have also submitted a representation (Annexure P-5) before the authority concerned, and the reminder to which was filed on 5.4.2021. It is prayed that the respondents be directed to decide the petitioners' representation in the light of the Office Memorandum and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same and it is stated that the representation will be decided as per the Office Memorandum and the directions of the Supreme Court as mentioned above.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioners' representation in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court, the Office Memorandum and the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Chaturvedi (supra) and Naresh Sharma (supra), within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed today.
It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merit of the case.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge MANZOOR Ansari Digitally signed by MANZOOR AHMED DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=ad2ac8e0b9d73797d7e446287ba5e706a07577c5a07e2372cf e20fcae57ca829, AHMED pseudonym=AE882FCA2791FCACAE8DA35C376AEF637CCFA59B, serialNumber=3F5ABBC4D66A4FA65FEFFCFA77B0475B40DB19901BA 46A4686739A8406EBBE50, cn=MANZOOR AHMED Date: 2021.10.26 10:15:27 +05'30'