Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxmi Narayana Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 June, 2016
1
W.P. No.21921/2011
23.6.2016
Shri M. K. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, counsel for Respondent No.2.
Heard counsel for the parties on admission.
The petitioner was initially appointed as peon in the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge at Vidisha. While so working he was promoted as a driver vide order dated 27.7.2010 by the District and Sessions Judge. He worked in the capacity of a driver on a vacant post that was available and thereafter when he was reverted from this post vide order dated 28.10.2010, this writ petition has been filed and the grievance made in the writ petition is that once the petitioner was promoted by the competent Authority his reversion amounts to punishment as contemplated under M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and as the punishment has been imposed of reversion to the lower post by way of the impugned order, the same is unsustainable.
The respondents have filed their detailed reply and submit that the petitioner was originally appointed as a Poen. His substantive appointment in the department was that of a 2 Peon; and in the matter of recruitment to various post in the establishments of the respondent particularly on the post of Driver, the recruitment Rules are the Madhya Pradesh State Garage Subordinate (Class-III-Ministerial) and (Class-III- Non-Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 1975; and as per this Rule the post of driver is to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. There is no channel of promotion from the post of Peon to the post of Driver and as the petitioner's promotion was in contravention to the Rule the matter was reexamined by the High Court and vide note sheet Annexure R-3 dated 28.10.2010 a decision was taken to revert the petitioner to his substantive post, as the post of Driver has to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment and was not a promotion post from the feeder cadre of Peon.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. Admittedly the petitioner was a Peon and is only entitled for seeking promotion in accordance with the channel of promotion provided to this post of Peon in accordance with the recruitment Rules. The petitioner while working as a peon was appointed on promotion as a Driver. Admittedly, as is evident from the recruitment Rules of 1975 appointment by promotion on the post of driver is not permissible. The 3 post of driver is filled up 100% by direct recruitment and if an error is committed in promoting the petitioner incorrectly or an illegal manner to the post of driver and if this error is corrected by reverting him, it is not a case where the petitioner is being punished for any misconduct. It is only a case where an illegal promotion granted contrary to the Rules is undone and the mistake is corrected. That being so, we find no error in the order passed by the respondent warranting reconsideration. The contention of the petitioner that he is being punished for misconduct in violation to the principles of nature justice is misconceived. It is not a case of punishment. It is only a case of correcting an error that has occurred in administratively dealing with the matter and if an error has been committed in accordance with law, we find no ground to interfere. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Anurag Shrivastava)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Anchal