Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pallavi Shukla on 13 February, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3939
1 WA-2190-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2190 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PALLAVI SHUKLA
Appearance:
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena - Dy.A.G for the petitioner/State.
Shri Amalpushp Shroti - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
On 4/12/2024, the parties agreed to argue the matter finally.
2. The present intra Court appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order
dated 7/2/2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P No.2778/2021
whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed.
3. The respondent/petitioner challenged the order dated 21/10/2020
passed by respondents whereby it has been held that the petitioner shall be
eligible for consideration of Senior payscale w.e.f 1/1/2022 in view of her
date of first appointment i.e 21/8/2015 in the payscale of Rs.15600-39100
with grade pay of Rs.5400.
4. The facts of the case draped in brevity are that the respondents had
published Advertisement in Rozgar Yojna on 11.08.2008, 18.08.2008 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3939
2 WA-2190-2023
28.08.2008 followed by a Corrigendum in the month of August, 2010 for
appointment to the vacant post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the
Police Department. The petitioner filled the form for selection. The main
examination was held on 25.11.2009, the results were declared on 8.06.2010
and interviews were held on 06.09.02010 and 26.10.2010. At the time of
interview the candidates were required to exercise their option for various
posts available. The petitioner opted for the post of Deputy Superintendent of
Police. The final results were declared on 28.10.2010 and the petitioner
scored 1432 marks and found place in the select list. By communication
dated 24.12.2010, she was called to undergo the medical examination and
was found fit for appointment. The select list was amended on 10.01.2011
and the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.1 in the waiting list and one Mr. Alok
Kumar Sharma was given the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The
petitioner was appointed as Joint Director, Revenue. Being aggrieved by
exclusion of her name from the select list the petitioner preferred Writ
Petition No.1062 of 2011 before this Court which was allowed by order
dated 23.01.2015 and it was held in paragraph No.17 to 23 as under :-
"17. On considering the above submissions, I find that
a sole question arises for adjudication is that whether
the select list and the waiting list were valid/alive at the
time when the petitioner sought appointment to the post
of Dy. S.P. From perusing the submissions and the
record (Annexure A/18) is the wait list and in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the original
select list issued by the M.P. Public Service
commission/respondent No.3 dated 28.10.2010,
however, the list was subsequently amended y way of
corrigendum since two institutional candidates
respondent No.4 Alok Kumar Sharma and Shri
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3939
3 WA-2190-2023
Abhishek Tiwari, the Department candidates had
protested that their option exercised had been
overlooked. They were entitled to the same and the
corrigendum or amended list was published by the M.P.
Public Service Commission on 0.01.2011 almost 4
months later and it is this reason which gave opportunity
to the petitioner to file a Writ Petition bearing
No.1062/11 to be included in the select list of Dy. S.P.
whereby she challenged her non inclusion in the newly
revised select list and the validity of the list so revised
was challenged. The Writ Court held that the M.P.
Public service Commission was justified in refusing the
select list and forwarding its recommendation to the
State of MP and the petitioner, however, was not
entitled to the inclusion in the revised list.
Subsequently the petitioner filed a Writ Appeal before
the Division Bench of his Court vide W.A.
No.611/2011 whereby the petitioner sought to
introduce an additional fact on record to raise question
that since Shri Rakesh Singh Markan had vacated the
post of Dy. S.P. since he was also selected on the post
of Deputy Collector through the M.P. Civil services
Examination held in the year 2009 and the post of
Dy.S.P. was vacated and whether the petitioner had
right to be considered for the vacant post. The Writ
Appellate Court, therefore, has remanded the matter
back to this Court to reconsider this fresh event which
had occurred subsequently and pass a judgment afresh.
18. It has also been contended before this Court that the
Home Department has recommended the case of the
petitioner to the M.P.P.S.C. on 20.06.2012 just two
days after resignation tendered by Shri Rakesh Singh
Markan. The letter is Annexure P/20 to this writ
petition. It was also contended by the Counsel that the
wait list was valid in terms of the decision passed by the
Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No.494/10.
Therefore, the attitude of M.P. Public Service
Commission for not forwarding its consent is creating
impediment in respect of joining of the petitioner
according to the persistent submissions put forth by the
Counsel for the petitioner.
19. Considering the submissions, the record and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3939
4 WA-2190-2023
arguments put forth by the Counsel for the respondent
No.3/M.P. Public Service Commission, I find that it was
obvious that the Public Service is not inclined to grant
its consent, therefore, the vital issue to be considered is
whether the waiting list was valid on the date of the
representation of the petitioner on resignation tendered
by Mr. Rakesh Singh Markan on 08.06.2012.
Considering the ratio laid down in Writ Appeal No.
494/2010 Annexure P/21) the Division Bench
categorically held that the waiting list pertaining to
vacancies advertised in the said advertisement issued by
the M.P. Public Service Commission was valid for the
period of 18 months. This fact has also been fortified by
the letters issued by the Deputy Secretary, M.P. Home
Department annexed along with the petition as
Annexure P/19 which stated that from the date of first
list i.e.29.11.2010; the wait list was valid up to
29.05.2011. However, since an amended list was
subsequently issued on 01.10.2011, the wait list was
also valid up to 01.07.2012. and in these terms, the
representation of the petitioner was found to be well
within the time period of the wait list. ail to understand
that if the original list has been amended due to leaving
out the in-service candidates, the mistake was accepted
by the State Govt. and duly corrected then why the
benefit cannot be given to a meritorious candidate who
apparently is at No.1 in the wait list. Similarly another
seat has fallen vacant by the resignation of Mr. Rakesh
Singh Markan nd the Home Department was fully
willing to consider the petitioner for the said post.
20. It is also noteworthy that it is not the contention of
the respondent No.3/M.P. Public Service Commission
that the petitioner had not applied for the post in the
same advertisement (as per ratio of W.A. No.494/2010)
or that the petitioner was not eligible for the post of
Dy.S.P. and the entire career of meritorious candidate is
at stake.
21. On minutely scrutinising the facts also this Court
has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had first
applied on 01.03.2012 to the Home Department for
consideration of her appointment as Dy.S.P. in place of
Shri Rakesh Singh Markan and a formal representation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3939
5 WA-2190-2023
was also filed on 8.06.2012 well within the extended
valid period of the wait list i.e.,01.07.2012. Then it
cannot be said that an extension was required under the
circumstances for extending the validity of the wait list
further and in these circumstances, I find that the cases
cited by the counsel for the respondent/M.P. Public
Service Commission are of no use to him.
22. Moreover the cases cited are of no help to the
respondent No.3/M.P. Public Service Commission also
primarily because Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution
of India guarantees to give equality to all the citizens
and if the in-house candidates were included late in the
elect list and the select list duly amended; then, there is
no reason why the present petitioner cannot be
considered against a post lying vacant and in the light of
the fact that a valid claim as been made by the
petitioner well within the time. She has filed her
representation immediately two days after the
resignation of Shri Rakesh Singh Markan to the post
Dy. Superintendent of Police. Her case has also been
recommended by the Home Department and do not
find any good ground for rejecting her claim either on
merits or the fact that the validity of the wait list had
expired when actually the corrigendum or amended list
would rant equal opportunity to the present petitioner
also. In this light, I find that the petition eeds to be
allowed.
23. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The
respondent No.3/M.P. Public Service Commission is
directed to give appropriate directions to the Home
Department for considering the candidature of the
present petitioner/Pallavi Shukla to the post of Dy. S.P.
if she is otherwise eligible for the post. Let the entire
exercise be completed within a period of two months
from the date of this order."
5. The aforesaid order was maintained by the Division Bench of this
Court by order dated 22.04.2015 passed in Writ Appeal No.112 of 2015.
The petitioner was then appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3939
6 WA-2190-2023
took charge on 01.09.2015 pursuant to order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the
respondents. On 04.12.2019 she made an application before the
respondents for award of higher pay scale and consequential promotion to
her. By the impugned order dated 21.10.2020 the said benefit has been
declined to be granted to the petitioner on the ground that she has taken
charge of the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police only on 29.09.2015
and under Rule 21 of Madhya Pradesh Karyapalik (Gazetted) Seva Bharti
thatha Padoniti Niyam, 2000, her case for grant of higher pay scale to her
can be considered only after a period of six years i.e. after 01.01.2022.
6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner was appointed
by order dated 21/8/2015 in the payscale of Rs.15600-39100/- with grade
pay of Rs.5400 to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. She has taken
over the charge of the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 29/9/2015
and, therefore, the petitioner will be entitled for the senior payscale on
completion of 7 years of service in view of Rule 21 of M.P Police Executive
(Gazetted) Services Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000.
7. After hearing the parties, the counsel for the State was directed to
produce copy of the order dated 25/4/2016 passed by the State Government
which is referred in the impugned order dated 21/10/2020. Copy of the said
order has been placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner alongwith
I.A No.1091/2025. The said order has been passed by the State Government
in the name of Governor and by the said order, the petitioner has been
granted seniority on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police above Shri
Lokesh Kumar Sinha.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3939
7 WA-2190-2023
8. Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the petitioner has
not worked from the date of appointment but has worked only from the date
of appointment i.e 21/8/2015 and, therefore, the eligibility of 7 years for
senior payscale has to be counted from the date of appointment and
according to him the petitioner completes 7 years of service in the year 2022.
9. Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that once the
seniority was given by State Government by order dated 25/4/2016, the said
period from the date of appointment has to be counted for the purpose of
grant of senior scale, he may not be entitled for salary.
10. We do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention of the counsel
for the appellant. The petitioner was given appointment on the
recommendation of PSC in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P
No.1062/2011 and thereafter the petitioner has been assigned seniority from
the date of first appointment then the services ought to have been counted for
the purpose of eligibility for grant of senior payscale. Thus, the single judge
has rightly held that the petitioner may have eventually joined in the year
2015 but the period of six years has to be counted from the year 2011 when
she has been given seniority from other batch mates.
11. In the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah and others vs. Sri Anjaneya
Swami Temple and others, (1996) 3 SCC 52 , the Apex Court ruled that in
an intra-court appeal, the Appellate Court is a Court of Correction which
corrects its own orders, in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in
the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of subordinate
court. In such appellate jurisdiction, the High Court exercises the powers of a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3939
8 WA-2190-2023
Court of Error. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed
by the learned ingle Bench warranting any interference in this intra-court
appeal.
12. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves and is hereby dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
