Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijmohan Badaria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
[1]
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH GWALIOR
(DIVISION BENCH)
W.A.No.768 of 2019
Brijmohan Badaria .....Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and others .....Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal, Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence :
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R (Oral)
(03-12-2021)
Per : Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice
Aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2019 passed in W.P.No.7605 of 2014
by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is in
appeal.
The case of the petitioner is that his plea for grant of annual increments
from the date of appointment as a Compounder from the date it was granted
to similarly placed employee was denied by the respondents, hence the instant
petition was filed.
The learned Single Judge on considering the contentions came to the
view that since there was inherent lack of qualification of the petitioner, he is
not entitled for any relief. The qualification of possessing a diploma in
[2]
Pharmacy was considered by the Tribunal in its order dated 7.5.1993 in
O.A.No.495 of 1992 before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative
Tribunal, Gwalior, wherein a two years period was granted to the applicants to
obtain the diploma in Pharmacy in order to save their employment.
Apparently, the same has not been done, therefore, in absence of possessing a
qualification no relief could be granted. The further contention of the
appellant is that in similar situation the learned Single Judge of this Court in
the order dated 16.8.2007 passed in W.P. No.6877 of 2003 has granted relief
that the petitioner therein is similarly situated to the petitioner herein. Hence,
he pleads that the said order being made applicable herein.
On considering the contentions, we do not find any error passed by the
learned Single Judge that calls for interference. The apparent lack of
qualification is undisputed. Even the time granted by the Tribunal in the
aforementioned order has not been yield off by the writ petitioner. He has
failed to obtain a diploma in Pharmacy, therefore, he lacks basic qualification.
Hence, no relief could be granted to him.
So far as a reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge is
concerned, we are of the considered view that the same is misplaced. The
learned Single Judge in our view misread Article 14 of the Constitution of
India while granting a negative equity to the petitioner therein. Time and
again the Hon'ble Supreme Court have deprecated the findings of the court in
granting negative equity to persons just because an order is wrongly passed in
favour of a particular person cannot be continued to be granted to the
petitioner before this court. Apparently, the same has missed the attention of
the learned Single Judge in aforesaid judgment. Therefore, we are of the
[3]
considered view that the finding of declaration of law by the learned Single
Judge therein may not be appropriate. Therefore, the reliance placed on the
learned Single Judge's order is misplaced.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is also disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Pawar/-
ASHISH
PAWAR
2021.12.04
16:36:33
+05'30'
