^-—.^-^-^^iNS^- ^- BEFOSE TNE HON-SLE STATE SDMINISTRfiTIVE TRIBUN^L AT R^ZFUR N.P. Q-A. N0. /98 C^^.s; ^^2. ^ ^. KUMfiR MSSHRA Son Shr i kr x^hna Mi'shr a aged Upper Divi.sion T^acher y Cff Shr i yesrs; Oovt» Higher Second^ry - Sdhool^ 'O'harghoda Di-Btt. Ra.iaarh H»P« AFPL..IC-ANT VERSyS STATE OF NA&HVP, FRAOESH Thraugh the Ss'cr%tary 3 Hir^istry of Nel-fare Scheduled Vallabh €:a%t.^% ^'nd Trxbes; Bhasssan y Bt^opal THE COMKISSIONER, ^DIVAS-I VZKAS, Satpuda Bha^^n^ Bhopal 3. 9HRI ANSL KOtyt^R TRSVEDI', Lecturery C/0 Cc3%%i.%.%ion^r 5 Adivassi Vxkas; Satpur a Bhai^an y Bhopa.1 4. THE DZVZSSQNAL DY. CO?i«ZSSIOf.fER Tr ihal Ne1far e Depart^er.t 5 Nehr u Cho^k ^ Bi 1a^pur 5. THE ASSISTfiNT COHNXSSIQNER, Tr iba I iste i fare Oepartment y Dis.trict Raiqarh M.P. ftPPLZCANTS ^•PPLICATION ONSER SECTXON 1^' OF ADNINISTRAT2VE TRZBUNALS ACT, .A985 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. PBTITIONER Writ Petition {S\ No.2772/2005 Sharad Kumar Mishra RESPONDENTS Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now C.G.) and others Appearance: Shri B. P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 20.4.2010) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing validity of order dated 9.7.1998 (Annexure A-l) to the extent it mentions the petitioner as Lecturer, Mathematics. Petition is also directed against the order dated 12.1.1996 (Annexure A-2) by which respondent No.3 (Anil Kumar Trivedi) has been promoted as Lecturer. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondents No.3 was appointed as U.D.T. after the petitioner. It is submitted that though the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 1.2.1982, respondents No.3 was appointed on 3.2.1982. When the consolidated gradation list (Annexure A-6) showing seniority position of Lectures as on 1.4.1996 was issued, name of the petitioner was not mentioned, whereas respondent No.3 was placed at Sr. No. 4523 showing that he was appointed on 3.2.1982. He further submits that as the petitioner was senior to respondent No.3, petitioner was not only entitled to be /^^'\ i, ;.^l J '^^7.,/ •^-^^—;^:t' -2- ^ placed at appropriate place in the seniority list over and above respondent No.3, but also entitled to be pronioted when alleged junior was promoted to the post of Lecturer vide inipugned order dated 12th January, 1996 (Annexure A-2). 3. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though, belatedly, petitioner was promoted vide order dated 9.7.1998 (Annexure A-l) but, in the <s^id order, petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as a Lecturer in the subject of Mathematics, whereas, it ^. should have been Lecturer in the subject of Botany. 4. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that though the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 9.7.1998 (Annexure A-l), later on, the aforesaid promotion order was cancelled vide another order dated 28.12.1998 (Annexure R-l). It is argued that in the absence of any challenge to the said order, petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by him. It is next urged that the petition has been flled on the premise that respondent No.3 was appointed aftei: the petitioner and therefore junior to him. In the submission of learned counsel for the respondents, respondent No.3 was appointed vide order » dated 22.1.1982, whereupon he joined on 3.2.1982. On the other hand, petitioner's order of appointment was issued subsequently on 1.2.1982, whereupon he joined on 15.2.1982. Petitioner, therefore, cannot claim seniority over and above respondent No.3, as respondent No.3 was appointed prior to the petitioner on the post of U.D.T. The averments made in the return and the documents filed along with that have not been traversed by the petitioner. It is therefore clear that petitioner was appointed as UDT after respondent No.3. -3- "^-;. 5. In this view of the matter, petitioner's claim that he was senior to respondent No.3 does not hold field and deserves rejection. The other claim of the petitioner for direction to respondents to make appropriate modification in promotion order dated 9.7.1998 (Annexure A-l) does not survrive for consideration in view of the subsequent order of cancellation dated 28.12.1998. Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 6. At this stage Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to challenge order dated 28.12.1998 (Annexure R-l). 7. Needless to emphasise, if the petitioner wants to challenge the said order, it will be open for the petitioner to take such recourse as may be available to him under the law. However, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of petitioner's claim, if any, for promotion. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude Praveen