B.L.Sharma vs The State Of M.P. And Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 8687 MP

                                                         1
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                ON THE 30th OF JUNE, 2022

                                      WRIT PET. (SERVICE) No. 5916 of 2005

                              Between:-
                              B.L. SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF
                              SHRI RAM CHARAN SHARMA, ASSISTANT
                              DIRECTOR    (TECHNICAL),  DIRECTOR    OF
                              HANDLOOMS AND HANDICRAFTS, BHOPAL
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                              (BY SHRI R.K. VERMA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
                              RAMMURTI TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

                              AND

                              1. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE
                              PRINCIPAL   SECRETARY,    GRAMODYOG
                              DEPARTMENT,   GOVERNMENT     OF  M.P.,
                              VALLABH   BHAWAN,      BHOPAL (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                              2.DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE
                              OF    HANDLOOMS      &       HANDICRAFTS,
                              MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA MANDAL PARISAR,
                              SHIVAJI NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                              (BY SHRI YASH SONI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                            This petition coming on for hearing on this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                          ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 21.04.2005 contained in Annexure-P/7.

By the impugned order dated 21.04.2005, Additional Secretary, Signature SAN Not Verified Gramodyog Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh reverted petitioner to Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR PATEL the post of Senior Inspector (Technical). Petitioner was promoted as eligible Date: 2022.07.05 17:37:45 IST

senior of petitioner namely K.K. Gupta name was not considered in DPC since departmental enquiry was pending against him therefore seal cover procedure was adopted. Later on, Shri K.K. Gupta was exonerated. There was only one post of Assistant Director (Technical), therefore, petitioner was reverted so that Shri K.K. Gupta, who was senior to petitioner, can be promoted for post of Assistant Director (Technical).

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner argued that impugned order dated 21.04.2005 is bad in law. Petitioner was not promoted temporarily or on officiating basis. Promotion of petitioner was on regular basis. Reversion of petitioner amounts to reduction in rank, therefore, order is hit by Article 311

of the Constitution of India.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner relied on judgment reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 773, Union of India Vs. Jagdish Prasad. In said judgment, it was held that promotion of Chief Ticket Inspector was on permanent basis and if that be so the reversion of each of them must be held to be violative to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It was argued that petitioner has further been promoted and he is working on officiating basis as Deputy Director.

It is submitted by learned senior counsel that according to M.P. Hathkargha Sanchalanalaya Rajpatrita Sewa Bharti Niyam, 1986, Senior Inspector (Technical) is a feeder cadre post for promotion on post of Rural Industries Officer. In view of same, petitioner can also be considered for promotion to the post of Rural Industries Officer. Both posts carry the same

Signature SAN Not pay scale and have the same feeder cadre. It was also argued that before Verified

Digitally signed by passing order of reversion Public Service Commission ought to have been SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.07.05 17:37:45 IST

consulted. It is apparent from note-sheet dated 11.02.2005 that Public Service Commission was not consulted and, therefore, order is bad in law and on recommendation of Public Service Commission order of reversion can be passed. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner also relied on fundamental Rule 12(A) and submitted that promotion is ordered without mentioning any condition, therefore, promotion is covered by Fundamental Rule 12(A) and petitioner cannot be reverted.

Government Advocate appearing for respondent/State submitted that petitioner was promoted on post of Assistant Director (Technical) on temporary basis till further orders, therefore, order of reversion will not be hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Reversion will not amount to reduction in post. Counsel for respondent submitted that there is no prayer in the petition that petitioner be considered for the post of Rural Industries Officer. Counsel for respondent relied on judgment reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 175, G.S. Ramaswamy Vs. The Inspector General of Police. He relied on para 9 of judgment which is quoted as under:-

"9. This brings us to the next question whether the reversion in the present cases can be said to amount to reduction in rank. In view of what we have said above on the first point raised on behalf of the petitioners, it is clear that the petitioners cannot be treated as confirmed circle inspectors. It is not disputed that they have never been confirmed as such. It is also not disputed that they have not been reverted on account of any fault in their work.

The reversion has been made simply because senior circle inspectors have come back to the State either from deputation or from leave and they have to be Signature Not accommodated. Such reversion, therefore, cannot amount SAN Verified to reduction in rank for two reasons, (firstly) because the Digitally signed by petitioners before us were never confirmed as circle SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.07.05 17:37:45 IST

inspectors and had no right to that post, and (secondly) because the reversion is on account of exigencies of service and not on account of any fault on their part. Reversion on account of exigencies of service, as senior officers have come back from deputation or from leave, cannot in our opinion amount to reduction in rank. The contention of the petitioners that by this reversion they have been reduced in rank, therefore, fails." In view of aforesaid arguments, counsel appearing for respondent prays for dismissal of writ petition.

Heard the counsel for the parties.

On going through impugned order dated 17.02.2003 mentioned as under:-

"vLFkkbZ :i ls vkxkeh vkns'k rd lgk;d lapkyd] ftyk gFkdj? kk dk;kZy;] Hkksiky ds in ij inLFk djrk gSA"

Said order was temporary in nature and petitioner was promoted till further orders. In view of same, order of reversion is not hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Petitioner was not holding a regular promotional post and order was subject to further orders.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner has argued that respondent ought to have considered for adjustment of petitioner on post of Rural Industries Officer. Said post is equivalent to post of Assistant Director (Technical). It is for respondent to consider the aforesaid prayer. Petitioner may approach the respondent for consideration of same and order passed today will not come in way of respondents for considering petitioner for the post of Rural Industries Officer if said post is vacant and said post is equivalent to that of Assistant Director (Technical).

Signature SAN Not Petitioner has also raised a ground that Public Service Commission was Verified

Digitally signed by required to be consulted before passing order of reversion. Respondents had SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.07.05 17:37:45 IST

not filed any reply on said contention of petitioner. Order of reversion is not a punitive order. Said order has been passed as senior to petitioner was exonerated in departmental enquiry and when sealed cover recommendation of DPC was opened, he was found suitable for promotion. Since order was not punitive in nature, therefore, recommendation of Public Service Commission is not required.

In view of aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sp/-

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Date: 2022.07.05
17:37:45 IST