Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh Kumar Vishwakarma vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 27 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8144
-1-
WP-274-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 27th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 274 of 2012
KAMLESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND 3 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L.C.Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri (Dr.) Amit Bhatia - Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent/State.
Shri Padmnabh Saxena - Advocate for respondent No.4.
Reserved on: 17.03.2025
Pronounced on: 27.03.2025
ORDER
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by
the petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated 28.04.2011 whereby the
respondent authority rejected his claim for promotion to the post of Head
Constable (Blacksmith).
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Trade man Constable
(Blacksmith) in the Special Armed Force (S.A.F) on 03.05.1994. Over the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8144
WP-274-2012
years, he gained sufficient experience and on completing six years of service
he became eligible for promotion to the post of Head Constable (Blacksmith).
In 2004, a fit list for promotion was prepared in which the petitioner's name
was included under the Blacksmith trade. However, despite fulfilling the
eligibility criteria he was denied the promotion. Instead, respondents No. 3
and 4 were promoted to the post of Head Constable (Pioneer) and Head
Constable (Mason), respectively. Petitioner made several representations to
the authorities which were mechanically rejected on 28.04.2011 on the ground
that the life of fit list of 2004 had expired. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of the present petition.
3. Shri Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was appointed as a Tradesman Constable on 03.05.1994 and was
included in the fit list for the year 2004 at serial no. 22 under the trade of
Blacksmith whereas respondent no. 3 and 4 were appointed as "Helpers" and
did not pass any trade test required for promotion from Constable Tradesman
to Head Constable Tradesman. Despite this, respondent no. 3 was promoted
by order dated 13.06.2005 and respondent no. 4 was promoted by order dated
10.12.2004 whereas the petitioner was denied promotion. The order of
promotion of respondent no.4 was challenged before this court by one of the
tradesman Constable, Prahlad Singh which resulted in quashment of the
promotion of respondent No.4 by this Court in the case of Prahlad Singh v.
State of M.P. & Others in W.P. No. 2075/2005 decided on 23.01.2007 along
with a direction to the respondents to prepare fresh trade wise fit list. Pursuant
to the judgment in the case of Prahlad Singh (supra), Prahlad Singh was
promoted with effect from 10.12.2004 and the promotion of respondent no. 4
was cancelled. However, no fresh fit list trade-wise was prepared for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8144
WP-274-2012
promotion and further, respondent no. 4 also obtained relief of promotion from
this Court in W.P. No. 6053/2010 by order dated 15.09.2010 wherein this
Court had directed the respondents to reconsider his case for promotion and
after reconsideration he was again promoted by the respondents.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite the
order passed in the case of Prahlad Singh (supra), the respondents did not
revise the fit list of 2004 nor conducted trade-wise promotions. Moreover,
even after the alleged expiration of the 2004 fit list, promotions were granted
to respondent no. 4 on 21.04.2011 and to Prahlad Singh on 02.04.2009 but no
such benefit was given to the petitioner and the case of the petitioner was
rejected on the ground of expiry of fit list expiry which displays the arbitrary
and discriminatory treatment of the respondents with the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has a clean service record with no adverse
remarks in his ACR and is fully eligible for promotion. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.T. Veerappa & Others vs. State
of Karnataka & Others reported in 2006 AIR SCW 2197 where it was
categorically held that similarly placed employees should be treated equally
and that denial of benefits to one group while granting them to another,
despite their identical circumstances, is patently irrational and arbitrary.
Learned counsel also placed reliance on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha
reported in 2006 SCC (L&S) 447.
Reply by the respondents
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that the writ petition is without merit as the representation of
petitioner was rejected primarily because the validity of the fit list issued in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8144
WP-274-2012
2004 was only for 18 months and had already expired and thus an order of
promotion of petitioner could not be issued. The 2004 fit list was prepared
according to the G.O.P. 119/2004 which consolidated all categories into a
unified seniority list based on the date of appointment and included constables
who had cleared the mandatory trade test, as per rules. Thus, the contention of
the petitioner that respondents No. 3 and 4 listed as Helpers were unskilled
and thus ineligible for inclusion in the fit list is incorrect and lacks substance
as respondents No. 3 and 4 had duly passed their trade test in their helper
category while the petitioner had qualified as a Blacksmith. According to
established procedure, all the trades including Helper, Blacksmith, Carpenter,
Electrician, etc. are all recognized trades with equal status and every constable
is allotted a specific trade only after passing a trade test at recruitment and
there exists no separate category of "General Duty," as every constable is
assigned a trade upon recruitment.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the reliance
placed by the petitioner on the case of Prahlad Singh (supra) to support his
claim for promotion is distinguishable. Learned government advocate further
submitted that in the case of Prahlad Singh (supra) the relief was granted by
this Court solely on the basis of seniority, as he was senior to respondent No.
4. Whereas in contrast, the petitioner herein is junior not only to Prahlad Singh
but also to respondents No. 3 and 4. In the unified fit list prepared in 2004,
the petitioner is placed at serial No. 22 whereas respondent No. 3, respondent
No. 4, and Prahlad Singh occupied serial No. 10, 8, and 18 respectively.
Petitioner is not entitled to promotion as no Constable junior to him has been
promoted and since the fit list itself had already ceased to have legal force
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8144
WP-274-2012
after 18 months of issuance no right to promotion can be claimed. Thus, the
respondents prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. Petitioner is claiming parity with Prahlad Singh (supra) whose writ
petition came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2007 by
directing the respondent to consider his case for grant of promotion to the post
of Head Constable in the trade of Carpenter. The aforesaid order has been
complied with by issuing an order dated 02.04.2009 and he was promoted to
the post of Head Constable (Carpenter) with effect from 10.12.2004.
Thereafter, another writ petition filed by respondent No.4 Upendra Singh
(Constable) came to be allowed vide order dated 15.09.2010 and the said order
was also complied with by the respondents by issuing order dated 21.04.2011.
Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation that he is also entitled
to similar relief.
8. According to the respondents, and as per the fit list Surendra
Bahadur/respondent No. 3, Upendra Singh/respondent No.4 and Prahalad
Singh were placed much above the petitioner. Surendra Bahadur was at serial
No. 10, Upendra Singh was placed at serial No.8, Prahalad Singh was at serial
No. 18 and no junior to the petitioner was promoted ignoring his claim.
Respondents No. 3 and 4 cleared the test of Helper therefore, they were
promoted in the same category whereas the petitioner passed the test in the
Blacksmith category. Petitioner has not pointed out any case of a Blacksmith
who was below him in the fit list and despite that has been promoted to the
post of Head Constable. In Annexure P/3, the petitioner was alone in the
category of Constable (Blacksmith) and no junior to him has been promoted to
the post of Head Constable (Blacksmith) or in any other category. Further,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8144
WP-274-2012
the validity of the list published in the year 2004 had expired long back. So
far as the case of Prahalad Singh is concerned, he approached this Court long
back in the year 2005 by way of writ petition. Whereas, the petitioner
accepted his non-selection in the year 2004 but when the petitions filed by
other Constables were allowed, he filed the present petition in the year 2012
i.e. after elapse of 8 years by which time the validity of the list had already
expired.
9. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, no case for interference in the
order impugned is made out. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
vidya
