Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 11 th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 21795 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
ANIL KUMAR TRIPATHI S/O LATE GAJENDRA NATH
TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R.I.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KATNI R/O B.D. AGRAWAL
WARD, MOHALLA, SARAYEIN, KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KATNI, THR. ITS
C O M M I S S I O N E R DISTT-KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. JAGESHWAR PRASAD PATHAK S/O LATE SHRI
K.N.PATHAK OCCUPATION: W/A REVENUE
INSPECTOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KATNI
R/O JALPA DEVI WARD, KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI T.K. KHATKA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
(SHRI PARAG TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
(BY SHRI MUKESH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner's contention is that petitioner was working as a Water Tax Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 12-03-2024 19:05:28 2 Inspector. He was granted promotion on the post of Assistant Revenue Officer. However, the impugned order dated 15.11.2017, as contained in Annexure P- 13, has been passed, cancelling the said promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Revenue Officer on the ground that post of Water Tax Inspector is not a feeder cadre prescribed under the Rules for promotion to the post of Assistant Revenue Officer.
Petitioner's contention is that petitioner's case was duly considered by a properly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee and that committee after considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, had promoted him. Therefore, that decision of a duly constituted DPC which was competent to take the decision to relax the conditions or enlarge the feeder cadre and that decision was approved by the MIC also, could not have been set aside by the impugned order.
Shri Parag Tiwari, in his turn, submits that the M.P. Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 provide for feeder cadre to the post of Assistant Revenue Officer as 'Assistant Revenue Inspector'.
Shri Dubey submits that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 58 of the Municipal Corporation Act, it was a valid appointment. This direction was issued in exercise of powers under Sections 421 and 417 of the Municipal Corporation Act.
However, perusing the record and the provisions contained in Section 58(1)(iii) of the Act, it is evident that all appointments to be made by the Mayor- in-Council, are subject to the prior confirmation of the State Government and the decision of the State Government in this behalf is final. Order dated 8.12.2017 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 15.11.2017 (Annexure P-13), is the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 12-03-2024 19:05:28 3 direction of the State Government to the concerned Municipal Corporation to cancel the appointment made illegally.
There is no material on record to show that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Revenue Officer was approved by the State Government and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order in recalling the said promotion order. Petition fails and is dismissed.
Order dated 8.12.2017, Annexure A-1, is given approval and it does not call for any interference.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE MTK Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 12-03-2024 19:05:28