Hitler Aarkel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1231 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR



WRIT PETITION NO.                                   7362/2017
Parties Name                   HITLER AARKEL

                                              VS.

                               STATE OF M.P.
                               AND ANOTHER
Bench Constituted              Single Bench
Judgment delivered By          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether       approved    for YES/NO
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioner: Shri Akash Choudhary, Advocate.

                               For Respondent no.2 : Shri Arpan Pawar, Advocate

Law laid down Significant paragraph number

(O R D E R ) 05/04/2021

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated

5.8.2016 by which representation preferred by petitioner to grant

him benefit of pay scale of post of Sanitary Inspector was

rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case is as under:-

Petitioner has preferred a representation before

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. His

representation was considered in light of M.P. Municipal

Corporation (Appointment and Condition of Service of Officers

and Servants) Rules 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of

2000'). Commissioner held that requisite qualification for post of

Sanitary Inspector was B.Sc or Diploma in Sanitization from a

recognized institution. Petitioner was not a Graduate in B.Sc and,

therefore, he does not fulfill the minimum eligibility qualification

and his representation was rejected vide order dated 5.8. 2016.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

petitioner was working against clear and vacant post of Sanitary

Inspector and was also holding requisite qualification for being

considered for appointment against post of Sanitary Inspector.

Petitioner was also continuously doing the work of Sanitary

Inspector, but he was not paid salary of the said post. Case of

petitioner was not considered for absorption against said post.

Said grievances were raised by petitioner in his representation,

which was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per

provisions of the Rules of 2000, qualification for post of Sanitary

Inspector is Higher Secondary along with Diploma in Sanitation.

Preference is to be given to persons who are having experience

in working as Sanitary Inspector. Petitioner is having qualification

required for the post of Sanitary Inspector and is working and

performing duties of said post since 2012. It is submitted that

identically placed employees were given the benefit but same

benefit has not been given to petitioner.

5. Respondents had filed their reply and stated that petitioner

was appointed on contract basis as Safai Karmachari on

11.7.2002. Petitioner was delegated the duty of Sanitary

Inspector due to shortage of staff. Petitioner performed the duty

of Sanitary Inspector between 2012 to 13.12.2017. Respondents

had relied on Section 69 of the M.P Municipal Corporation Act,

1956 and stated that Commissioner has power to assign duties to

any officer or servant of Corporation. Commissioner, in exercise

of powers under section 69(3) of said Act, in administrative

exigency, has assigned petitioner duty of Sanitary Inspector by

its order dated 31.12.2012. From 31.12.2017 petitioner was

doing the work of Marketing Inspector. Respondents asserted

that minimum qualification of post of Sanitary Inspector is either

B.Sc or Diploma in Sanitation. Petitioner does not have a

Bachelor Degree in B.Sc, therefore, claim of petitioner for

absorption as Sanitary Inspector was rejected. After amendment

in the Rules in the year 2000 post of Sanitary Inspector is to be

filled up by direct recruitment. Promotion to the post of Sanitary

Inspector shall be done as per direction of State Government.

Petitioner's claim for absorption to the post of Sanitary Inspector

and benefit of salary has rightly been rejected by respondents in

accordance with the Rules.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had made submission

that requirement of minimum qualification of B.Sc or Diploma in

Sanitation has come into force in the year 2015. Before the said

amendment requirement of Graduation was not there, therefore,

respondents had committed an error in rejecting the

representation.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

respondents and perused the documents filed by the parties.

8. Claim of petitioner has been rejected vide order dated

5.8.2016. Claim of petitioner was considered in the year 2016

when amended Rules are brought into force. Rule 4 of the Rules

of 2000, provides that post in service shall be filled up by direct

recruitment, promotion or deputation subject to restrictions

contained in Column 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule-I. Post of Sanitary

Inspector is mentioned at Sr. No.56 in Schedule-I. Scale of pay of

Sanitary Inspector is 5200-20,200/- plus G.P of Rs.2,100/-.

Appointment to said post is by both methods of recruitment i.e.

direct recruitment and promotion. 50% of the post is to be filled

up by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Qualification for

direct recruitment to post of Sanitary Inspector is B.Sc or Diploma

in Sanitation from recognized institution. Case of petitioner is for

absorption on the post of Sanitary Inspector. Petitioner is not

claiming promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector. On date of

consideration of petitioner's claim, Rule of 2015 was in force,

therefore, petitioner must have a Degree in B.Sc or Diploma in

Sanitation from recognized University as per Rule 5(2) of

Schedule-II of Rules of 2000. In view of the same no illegality can

be found in the impugned order. Claim of petitioner was rejected

on the ground that petitioner was not having B.Sc or Diploma in

Sanitation from recognized University.

9. Rule 10(1) of Schedule-III of Rules of 2000 is also

considered. Post of Sanitary Inspector finds mention at Sr. No.40.

The hierarchy for promotion to Sanitary Inspector as per Rule

10(1) of Schedule-III, entry No.40 to 42 is as under:-

Sanitary Inspector | Sanitation Supervisor (5 years experience) | Dy. Sanitary Supervisor (5 years experience) | Safai Karmachari/Sweeper (5 years experience)

10. From said entries it is clear that Safai Sanrakshak/Sweeper

is to be promoted to post of Dy. Sanitation Supervisor, then to

post of Sanitation Supervisor and thereafter to post of Sanitary

Inspector. Petitioner who is a Peon can be absorbed on the post

of Sanitary Inspector by mode of direct recruitment only and,

therefore, he must have a Degree in B.Sc or Diploma in

Sanitation. Post of Sanitary Inspector is 3 grade higher to post of

Sweeper on which petitioner is working.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, no illegality can be found in the order passed by the

respondents. Petitioner has relied on the orders which has been

passed by this court in the cases of Anand Singh Thakur vs.

Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and another, WP

No.14533/2009 and Smt. Anita Sharma and another vs.

Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, W.P No.4177/1998 relying

on the orders passed in the case of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Jain vs.

The Commissioner, WP No.4861/2001.

12. In the said case, petitioners therein were appointed as LDC

and work of regular teacher was being taken from them. Order

was passed to consider the case of petitioners therein

considering their qualification.

13. In the present case qualification of petitioner was

considered and it was found that he was not having minimum

qualification as per amended Rules of 2015, when case of

petitioner was considered for absorption.

14. In view of the same, no illegality can be found in the order

passed by the respondent authorities and petitioner cannot claim

parity on basis of order passed in the case of Dr. Rakesh Kumar

Jain (supra) as that was a case of LDC allowing the absorption of

post of teacher considering their qualification. In no case

qualification of petitioner can be ignored. Petitioner must have

qualification in accordance with recruitment Rules for being

absorbed on the post of Sanitary Inspector. Since petitioner is

not having the said qualification, therefore, his case was rightly

rejected.

15. Writ petition filed by the petitioner is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2021.04.09 17:36:24 +05'30'