Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalyani Chakravarty vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 29 April, 2014
:: 1 ::
Writ Petition No.4593/2014.
(Kalyani Chakravarty vs. State of M.P. and others)
29.4.2014. Shri H.R. Naidu, learned counsel for petitioner.
Heard on admission.
Aggrieved by her non-promotion to the post of Head Clerk
Municipal Council Kareli District Narsinghpur, the petitioner has
filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking quashment of order-dated 30.1.2014; whereby,
the respondent no.3 has been promoted to the post of Head
Clerk and direction to the respondents to consider her claim for promotion as per seniority.
Initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on compassionate ground by order-dated 4.3.1978, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk by order- dated 27.8.2003. That, promotion from the post of UDC is to that of Head Clerk.
That, Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 27.1.2014 to consider the UDC within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Heak Clerk. The petitioner and the respondent no.3 being within the zone of consideration were considered and each of them were found having equal marks. The DPC on a finding that respondent no.3 was promoted to the post of UDC earlier than the petitioner (promoted on 3.3.1994) was recommended for promotion. The deliberation finds mention in the minutes of meeting brought on record as Annexure P-4 which is reproduced below -
^^uxj ikfydk djsyh esa lgk;d oxZ&02 ds in ij /kkj.kkf/kdkj j[kus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh ofj"Brk fuEukuqlkj gS A :: 2 ::
Writ Petition No.4593/2014.
(Kalyani Chakravarty vs. State of M.P. and others) dz0 deZpkjh dk uke inuke orZeku in ij 'kS{kf.kd fjekdZ inLFk gksus dk vgZrk fnukad 1- Jh v'kksd lgk- 03-03-1994 ,e- dke- lkekU;
iLVkfj;k oxZ&2
2- Jherh dY;k.kh lgk- 01-09-2003 ,e- ,- lkekU;
pdzorhZ oxZ&2
5- inksUufr gsrq fopkj {ks= esa vkus okys 2 deZpkfj;ksa ds foxr 5 o"kksZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A lfefr }kjk ik= deZpkfj;ksa ds foxr 5 o"kksZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa ds vk/kkj ij inksUufr ij fopkj djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k A xksiuh; izfrosnu dh Js.kh dks vadksa esa ifjofrZr dj dqy vadksa ds vk/kkj ij ;ksX;rk dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k A Js.khokj fuEukuqlkj vad nsus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k A Js.kh vad +d 5 d 4 [k 3 x 2 ?k 1 6- inksUufr gsrq ik= deZpkfj;ksa ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa ds vk/kkj ij izkIr vadksa dh fLFkfr fuEukuqlkj ikbZ x;h & dz0 deZpkjh o"kZ rFkk Js.kh@vad dk uke 07&08 08&09 09&10 10&11 11&12 dqy 1- Jh +d +d +d +d +d 25 v'kksd iLVkfj;k 2- Jherh +d +d +d +d +d 25 dY;k.kh pdzorhZ :: 3 ::
Writ Petition No.4593/2014.
(Kalyani Chakravarty vs. State of M.P. and others) ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk furkar vko';drk gS fd o"kZ 12&13 dh vof/k esa rRdkyhu eq[; uxjikfydk vf/kdkjh Jh fgek'kq HkV~V dk;Zjr jgs gSa A Jh HkV~V orZeku esa LFkkukarfjr gksdj vU;= fudk; esa dk;Zjr gSa A Jh HkV~V }kjk o"kZ 12&13 dh vof/k ds xksiuh; izfrosnu fdlh Hkh deZpkjh ds erkadu ugha fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i fn;s x;s izko/kku vuqlkj iwoZ o"kZ ds vFkkZr 07&08 dh vof/k ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa dks fopkj esa fy;s tkus dk fu.kZ; lfefr }kjk loZlEefr ls fd;k x;k A mijksDr foooj.k@rkfydk ds voyksdu ls Kkr gksrk gS fd Jh v'kksd iLVkfj;k ,oa Jherh dY;k.kh pdzorhZ dks 25&25 vad izkIr gq, gSa A e0iz0 uxjifydk deZpkjh ¼HkrhZ rFkk lsok 'krsZ½ fu;e 1968 ds fu;e 12 esa izko/kku gS fd ;ksX;rk leku gksus ij ofj"Brk ij fopkj fd;k tkosxk A mijksDr fLFkfr esa Jh iLVkfj;k ,oa Jherh pdzorhZ ds vad leku gS ijUrq Jh v'kksd iLVkfj;k orZeku in ij fnukad 3@3@94 ls rFkk Jherh dY;k.kh pdzorhZ orZeku in ij fnukad 1@9@03 ls dk;Zjr gS A bl izdkj Jh v'kksd iLVkfj;k ofj"B deZpkjh gS A vrSo ftyk p;u lfefr e0iz0u0ik0 deZpkjh ¼HkrhZ rFkk lsok 'krsZ½ fu;e 1968 ds fu;e 12 esa fn;s x;s izko/kku vuqlkj ;ksX;rk leku gksus ij ofj"B deZpkjh Jh v'kksd iLVkfj;k lgk;d oxZ&02 dh inksUufr] eq[; fyfid ds in ij] muds }kjk vgZrk iw.kZ djus rFkk jksLVj vuqlkj in vukjf{kr gksus rFkk xks0izfr0 mRd`"V Js.kh ds gksus ds QyLo:i Jh v'kksd iLVkfj;k dh inksUufr eq[; fyfid ds in ij djus dh vuq'kalk loZlEefr ls djrh gS A** Though, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that seniority for promotion to the post of Head Clerk ought to have been taken from the initial date of appointment of service; however, learned counsel fails to substantiate the :: 4 ::
Writ Petition No.4593/2014.
(Kalyani Chakravarty vs. State of M.P. and others) submission as no rule has been commended at, stipulating that, for promotion to the post of Head Clerk from the feeder cadre i.e. UDC, the seniority has to be taken on the basis of initial date of recruitment i.e. on the post of LDC.
In absence whereof, the conclusions arrived at by the DPC recommending respondent no.3, being senior to the petitioner on the post of UDC, cannot be faulted with.
In view whereof, there being no substance in the petition, the same is dismissed in limine. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod