Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Premlal Basore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 25515 of 2021
Between:-
1. SHRI PREMLAL BASORE S/O LATE SHRI
MAHESH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT GRADE III
(REVERTED TO THE POST OF PEON) R/O
TIKURIYA TOLA, SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI DEEP KUMAR PANDEY S/O LATE THAKUR
PRASAD PANDEY, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT
GRADE III (REVERTED TO THE. POST OF PEON)
R/O RAMPURBAGHELAN, DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY MS. ANJALI SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAW AND
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN, MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SATNA
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI MOHD. NAVED - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3)
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioners were initially appointed as peon in the District Court,
Satna on 08.01.2010 and 16.11.2000 respectively. Vide order dated 25.06.2015,
they were promoted to the post of Assistant Grade - III with a condition that
they should obtain a certificate of Hindi typing from a recognised Board and
one year Computer Diploma from a UGC certified institute, within a period of
two years. Since the same was not done, they were reverted to the post of peon
by the impugned order dated 29.06.2020. Aggrieved by the same, appeals were
filed, which were dismissed on 22.10.2021. Questioning the same, the instant
petition is filed.
Ms.Anjali Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioners contends that the
order of reversion is bad in law. She places reliance on the Government
notification dated 01.04.2003 which is produced as Annexure P/4 to the
petition. A reading of the same would indicate that there is an exemption granted
to the persons who are aged 45 years or more. That in similar circumstances,
the learned Single Judge of this Court, Bench at Indore in Writ Petition
No.17864 of 2019 - Mahesh Giri Vs. State of M.P. and other connected
petitions, vide judgment dated 16.01.2020 has held that the promotion is to be
reckoned from the date of attaining the age of 45 years and therefore, reversed
the order of reversion. It is pleaded that the benefit granted to the petitioners
therein be extended to the petitioners herein also.
The same is disputed by the learned counsel for respondents.
On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in the petition. The
order of promotion granted to the petitioners is quite clear. It indicates that they
should obtain a certificate in Hindi typing and one year Diploma in computer
within a period of two years from the date of promotion. The promotion was
effected in the year 2015. Therefore the certificates should have been obtained
within the year 2017. Having failed to do so, they were not entitled to continue
in the promoted posts. Therefore, they have been rightly reverted back to their
old position.
The reliance placed on the Government notification dated 01.04.2003, in
our considered view, may be misplaced. The notification itself clearly reiterates
the position with regard to passing of these two exams in the event of a
promotion. However, the last sentence of the notification would indicate that the
persons aged 45 years and above would be exempted from such a condition.
Therefore, the reading of the same would indicate that it is applicable only to
those persons who have crossed the age of 45 years as on the date of
promotion. It cannot be read otherwise. So far as the judgment of the learned
Single Judge is concerned, the facts therein are quite different. The petitioners
therein also did not clear the relevant exam. They were reverted after a period of
12 years. Keeping in mind the fact that they have continued to work for a period
of 12 years and also in pursuance of the interim order granted by the Court, the
learned Single Judge on the basis of equity came to the conclusion that the date
of promotion should be reckoned as when they attained the age of 45 years.
The facts involved in the present case are quite different. The promotion
was granted in 2015, which means that they should have cleared the exam within
the year 2017. Within a period of 3 years, they have been reverted. Therefore,
there cannot be a comparison so far as the facts are concerned. Yet another
contention being advanced is by placing reliance on Annexure at page 24 of this
petition, which is a communication addressed by the petitioner No.2. It is dated
31.01.2018. It is written to the authority saying that he requires a transfer to a
place where he can obtain the due certificates. The same would clearly indicate
that the intention of the petitioners was to clear the exam even in the year 2018,
namely after a lapse of three years' period. Therefore, the contention being
advanced, in our considered view, runs contrary to the case of the petitioners as
could be seen from the letter dated 31.01.2018. We may also hasten to add that
even as on date, both the petitioners have not cleared the exam. The situation
would have been different if they had cleared the exam at least at this point of
time. Having failed to clear the exam even after such a long lapse of time, we
do not find that equity could be extended to their favour. Hence, we do not find
any good ground to interfere.
The writ petition is dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
C
Digitally signed by
CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2022.07.20 11:30:05
+05'30'
