The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sushma Ptal
2021 Latest Caselaw 3950 MP

                                                                   1                                   WA-657-2021
                                        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                    WA-657-2021
                                             (THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs SUSHMA PTAL AND OTHERS)

                                1
                                Jabalpur, Dated : 04-08-2021
                                      Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                      Shri Ashish Anand Bernad, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
                                appellants/State.
                                      Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated

15.12.2020 by which, the writ petition (WP No.15801/2014) filed by the respondent being aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2014 by which, the representation preferred by her to grant pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer was rejected, has been allowed.

The case of the appellants as proposed by Shri Ashish Anand Bernad, learned Deputy Advocate General is that after selection of the respondent on 31.10.2006, one Bramah Swaroop Committee gave its recommendation which was adopted by the State Government. As per recommendation of the Committee, the nomenclature of the post Assistant Statical Officer was

changed to Statistical Investigator and the pay scale was reduced to Rs.4500-125-7000/- and, therefore, a letter was issued on 12.01.2007 by the Assistant Director, Public Instructions, Madhya Pradesh seeking consent of the respondent to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000/-. It is submitted that the respondent gave his consent for being appointed in the lower pay scale and, therefore, she cannot turn around to retract of the same. It is also argued that the appointment of the respondent was made against the backlog vacancy under special drive for OBC. It is denied that appointment was made in pursuance to advertisement dated 01.08.2009. Even otherwise the respondent is bound by the order of the GAD dated 05.10.2006.

Learned counsel for the respondent has disputed that she has gave her Signature Not Verified SAN consent for being appointed on the lower pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000/-. In

Date: 2021.08.05 15:53:31 IST 2 WA-657-2021 fact, she was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- which was refixed as per the advertisement issued by the appellants, she participated in the process of selection and was selected. The recruitment on the aforesaid post of Assistant Statistical Officer in the said pay scale is made as per Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class-III Education Service (Non-collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules 1993, which has not been

amended.

The learned Single Judge on examining the rival submissions of the parties made the following observation in para 6 of the impugned judgment.

"6 . From perusing the facts of the case, it is clear that selection list was published on 12.1.2007. Petitioner was given appointment on 7.2.2007, when she consented for being appointed to the post of Statistical Investigator in pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/-. Bramah Swaroop Committee had made recommendation and same was accepted by the State Government on 5.10.2006. After acceptance of proposals of Bramah Swaroop Committee, Recruitment Rules were not amended. This Court in Sevak Ram Golhani (supra) has held that Expert Committee report can be implemented qua employee if recommendations are accepted and relevant Recruitment Rules are modified/amended accordingly. Respondents are unable to show that Recruitment Rules i.e. Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1993 was amended on 7.2.2007."

It is evident that not only the factum of the consent by the respondent has been denied, but it has also not been shown that the Rules of 1993, were amended in tune with the recommendation of the Bramha Swaroop Committee. In any case, the recommendation of such Committee even if accepted would have to be applied only prospectively and not retrospectively. In other words, such recommendation if implemented, will not affect those who have been recruited earlier, than acceptance of the 3 WA-657-2021 recommendations. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

     (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)                        (AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
      CHIEF JUSTICE                                        JUDGE


pb