Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamlal vs Directorate Of Public Instruction ... on 16 September, 2019
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1- WP No.18841/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
WRIT PETITION NO.18841/2017
(Shyamlal s/o Sajjanlal Soni vs.State of M.P & others)
16.09.2019 (INDORE):
Shri S.M.Porwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Chetan Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents
No.1 to 3.
None for respondent No.4, though served.
Respondent No.5 has refused to accept notice, hence he
has been treated as served.
Heard.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2012 whereby respondents No.4 & 5 have been promoted to the post of Lecturer (subject Mathematics) superseding the seniority of the petitioner and denying him promotion.
2. By order dated 30.12.1986 the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in the School Education Department in subject Mathematics. The name of the petitioner is at serial No.32. By the same order respondents No.4 & 5 were also appointed as Teacher and their names are reflecting at serial No.78 & 86 respectively. Vide order dated 18.01.2012 based on the recommendations of the DPC held on 10.05.2010, the respondents No.4 & 5 have been promoted to the post of Lecturer. In this list the names of respondents No.4 & 5 are reflecting at serial No.213 & 215 respectively. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner submitted detailed -2- WP No.18841/2017 representation to the Director, Public Instruction, Bhopal that despite being senior to respondents No.4 & 5 he has been denied promotion. Again he sent reminder on 10.04.2012. When the respondents have not decided the representation, he approached this Court by way of this petition.
3. Despite service of notice, no detailed and para-wise return has been filed by the respondents No.1 to 3. The respondents No.1 to 3 have earlier filed a brief reply by submitting that the issue relating to reservation in promotion is pending before the Apex Court, therefore, the right is being reserved to file a detailed and para-wise reply. This Court directed the respondents to file a detailed and para-wise reply. Thereafter, on 09.04.2019 a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the respondents. Again on 08.05.2019 six weeks' time was granted to file reply. However, respondents filed an application seeking waiver of cost. Vide order dated 22.07.2019 this court has rejected the application. Despite that till today the detailed and para-wise return has not been filed by them, however, the cost has been paid to the petitioner. In view of the above, the averments made in the petition have to be accepted as there is no denial by the respondents.
4. It is clear from the appointment order dated 30.12.1986 that the petitioner is senior to respondents No.4 & 5. The petitioner is also more qualified because he is having Msc and BEd. degree whereas respondents No.4 & 5 are only having BSc degree. The petitioner sent detailed representations dated 30.04.2012 and 12.08.2014 to the respondents and both have not been replied by the respondents. The criteria for promotion is only seniority-cum-merit. The petitioner being a senior ought to -3- WP No.18841/2017 have been promoted to the post of Lecturer if no enquiry is pending or he has not been punished, however, no details have been furnished by the respondents by filing reply. The District Education Officer, Mandsaur has filed a reply only raising objection that the relief cannot be granted because there is a stay in the matter of reservation by the Apex Court. It appears that he has avoided to submit para-wise reply to the writ petition.
5. In this case the petitioner is challenging his non promotion in the year 2012 and at that time there was no stay by the Apex Court. The respondents were required to justify as to why he was not considered for promotion. No more fresh DPC is required to held in this matter. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer with effect from the date when his immediate juniors were promoted. If he is found entitled for promotion the said benefit be extended to him with all consequential benefits.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
hk/ Digitally signed by Hari Kumar
JUDGE
Nair
Date: 2019.09.17 11:35:42 +05'30'