Ravi Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2437 MP

                                  - : 1 :-
                                                             W.P. No. 8092/2021



 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
    (SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

                          W.P. No. 8092 of 2021
      (Ravi Verma S/o. Ramswaroop Verma V/s. State of M.P. & others)

Date: 16.06.2021 :
      Petitioner by Shri L.C. Patne, Advocate.
      Respondents/State by Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, Govt. Advocate on

advance copy.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief through video conferencing.

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 3.7.2019 issued by respondent No.3 as he has been granted promotion to the post of Head Constable but seniority in the cadre is assigned w.e.f. 19.6.2014.

The petitioner has filed the writ petition inter alia that he is entitled for the seniority w.e.f. date of passing PP Course as held by this Court in the case of Sanjay Yadav V/s. State of M.P. & others (W.P. No.6211/2014 decided on 28.9.2015). He further submits that in case of similarly placed employees, proper seniority has been given to them, thus, there is a hostile discrimination meted out to him. The petitioner has submitted the representation (Annexure P/13) on 7.3.2021 approached this Court by filing the present petition on 3.4.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 6.4.1999. When he was posted in District Dewas, 37 seats were allotted for PP Course for the purposes of promotion to the post of Head Constable. The PP Course was organized from 2.5.2011 to 5.6.2011 in which the name of petitioner was also included. The petitioner attended the PP Course during the aforesaid period, and he was declared successful in the final examination and became eligible for promotion to the post of Head Constable under 'A' category. His name was also brought in the fit-list of the year 2011 for the purposes of promotion under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, but no

- : 2 :-

W.P. No. 8092/2021

action was taken. Vide order dated 3.3.2012, respondent No.2 again sought the names of suitable candidates through limited departmental examination with PP Course. Respondent No.2 submitted the list of 74 Constables under Unreserved (UR) category; 18 under SC category and 11 under Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the seats were available and the fit-list was also available with the Department, then, instead of calling the other names, the petitioner ought to have been promoted in the year 2011 itself. Vide order dated 10.10.2012, respondent No.3 issued the fit-list for the year 2012-2013 for promotion of Constables to the post of Head Constable. A similar issue came up for hearing before the Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Yadav (supra) which the coordinate Bench has held that the petitioner therein is entitled to be promoted on the post of Head Constable from the date when the similarly situated Constables were promoted. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in the case of Shivpal Bhadoriya & others V/s. State of M.P. & others (W.P. No.7583/2014 decided on 31.1.2017). Despite the aforesaid judgments, when the case of the petitioner was not considered, he submitted the representation on 18.1.2019 seeking promotion. Finally, vide impugned order dated 3.7.2019 the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Head Constable giving him the seniority in the cadre w.e.f 19.6.2014. According to the petitioner he is entitled to be promoted on the post of Head Constable on 2.4.2012 i.e. the date when other similarly placed Constables were promoted on the post of Head Constable.

Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted his representations after a period of two years from the date of the order on 7.3.2021 without giving time to the respondents to consider his case and rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition on 3.4.2021. This petition is coming up for hearing for the first time today for arguments on admission and the learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware as to whether the respondents have considered the representation of the petitioner or not? Hence, at this stage, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the

- : 3 :-

W.P. No. 8092/2021

competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law keeping in view the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Sanjay Yadav (supra) and Shivpal Bhadoriya (supra) within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The competent authority is directed to assign reason/s in case of rejection of the representation of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2021.06.21 18:08:38 +05'30'