^3 ^t^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No3$^50F 2003 y PETITIONER : ^y^ ^* ^X^C.--' ^•y^' ^""" YERSUS Ram Kishore Shaima Aged about 42 years S/o Slm Mahadeo Prasad , Shanna, Semor Horticulture Development OfiGco, Dharamjaigaih, District Raigaili (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ^_J-. StateofChhattisgadi, Through Secretaiy, Department ofAgriculture, D.K.S. Hiawan, Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G.) The Director, Directomte ofAgriculture, Govemment of Chhattisgarfi, Raipur(CG) Fakira Singh, Asst. Director, Horticulture, Koriya, Chhattisgadi Hakim Singh Chouhan Asst. Dircctor, Horticulture, Raigarh(C.G.). P.N. Tiwari, Asst. Direcfcor, Horticulture, Directorate of Agriculture, Ra^pur (C.G.). r\ I'.. 1-. .:;M^^ -."J 6. K.K.Pandey, Asst. Director, Horticulture, Korba ( C.G.). K.K. Mishm, Asst Director, Horticulture, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. t..;' Un ^l WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 216/227 0V THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ftf^- AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3525 of 2003 Petitloiier Rani Kishore Sharma Versus Respoiidente State of Chhattisgarh aiid othe.rs •K Post for oider on ( ^ July, 2006. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge y HIGHCOURTQFCHHATriSGARHJVrBjLASPUR Writ Petition No. 3525 of 2003 Petitioner Rain Kishore Shaj-ma Versus State of Chhattisgarh ejicl others : HoiiT^le Mr. Justice K. Shji H. S. Patel, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Smt. Anju Aliuja, Depiity Govt. Advocate for the respondents No, 1 aud 2. Shri Pawan Kesh?di¥ani, Advocate for the respondent No, 7. None for the other respondents. ORDER ( /^^Juty, 2006) The followmg order oftlie Court is passed by Satish K. Ag^ihotri, J- This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of ludia impugns the order datecl 7.8.2003 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioiier was not found fit for promotion to the post of Assistaiit Director, Horticulture, by applying the criteria of semority--ciizn-merit. The uudispiited facts iii nutshell are that fhe petitioner was appouited as Senior Horticulture Officer vide order dated 30.11.1985 (Annexure P/2) for a period of six monfhs aad posted at Block- Kesla, District- Hoshaiigabad. Thereefter vide order dated 20.11.1989 (Annexure P/3) fhe petitioner was given regiilar appoiiitment after confirmation by fhe Miiii Service Selection Board, Bhopal vide notification dated 7.1.1989. The petitioner challenges his placement at serial No. 17 in the gradation Ust pubUshed 011 4,7.2003, showiag fhe position as on 1.4.2003 on the groznid tliat his seniority for appoin^tment on fhe post of Senior Horticulture Officer should be considered from 16,12.1985. 2. W>) 4. The petitioner claiois relief ia this petition to the lioiited effect fhat fhe order of promotlon dated 7.8.2003 (Aiinexiur P/l), whereby the rcspondents No. 3 to 7 have beeH giunted promotion to fhe post of Assistant Director, Horticulture, without followifig the provisions of law, as prescribecl m Agriciiltare (Horticulture) Ga^etted Service Recruitment Riiles, 1987 (for short 'fhe Rules, 1987'), be quashed aiid fresli proBiotiou Ust be prcpared ia acx'ordance wifh flie Rnles, 1987. 5. Shri H. S. Patel, leamed counsel appearmg for fhe petitioner submits i that the Depe^lmeiital Promotion Committee (DPC) has not foUowed flie Rules, 1987. Rule 15 (2) clearly provides tiiat tffhe selectioii for iiiclusioii in sucli list shaU be based 011 merit aiid sziitabilily in aU respect, wifli due regard to seniorily.^ Accordisig to leanied counsel, the DPC has appUed fhe principle of merit-cum'seniority on fhe basis of certam io.stnictions which are contraiy to the Rules, 1987, franied iii exercise of fhe powers confeiTed to fhe Govemor of Madhya Pradesh by provi^) to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 6. Snit. Anju Aliuja, leamecl counsel appeariiig for fhe respondeiits/ State produced a copy of the DPC proceeding dated 19.7.2003 along wifh noti&cation dated 3rd September, 2003 and submittecl fhat m view of fhe Circular dated 31st JaiiTiaiy, 1997 fhe DPC foUowed the prmciples of seniority-czim-merit ( ^CT^dT -;H?- ^•''ycii ), aiid supported tlie proceedings of the DPC held on 19.7.2003. 7. Despite severel notices to fhe rcspoiidents No. 3, 4, 5 aad 6, iioiie appeaj^ed for the responclents No, 3 to 6, 8. Shri Pawan Kesharwaui, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respoiident No,7 adppts tlie siibinission inade by leamed cozuisel appeariiig for the respoiideuts/State. ^..^ Z'.-^SSi.^.. J.. 9. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties aucl perused fhe records appended to the petition and rctum, as well as the departmental proniotiou committee proceedmgs, helcl 011 19,7.2003, prcxlucecl by leamed counsel for fhe rcsponcleiits No. 1 ancl 2. 10. Admitteclly, the proHiotion of Senior Horticulture to the post of Assistaiit Director, Horticultnre is govemed by flie Rules, 1987, These Riiles are fraoiecl by fhe Govenior of tiie Madhya Pradesh iii exercise of fhe powers conferred by llie proviso to Article 309 of fhe Coiistitutioii of India. The relieiice of the. DPC. on sorae general admiiiistrative departsiiental circulars, ignoring fhe provisions of Rules 1987, is megal. 11. The Supreme Court in fhe case ofSecretary, State of Karaataka aad others Vs. Umadevi (3) aad others {(2006) 4 SCC 1), held m para 6, as under:- a6. Tfw power o/a Staie as mz employer is mnre Uimied ihan ihat of a pfwate efnployer inasmuch as it is subjected to c^tustitutional limitations csnd canm)t be exsrcised arbitrarily (see Basu>s Shorter Constifuiion of Ifidia). Afiicle 309 of the Constituiwn gives ihe Go^enzmen? tfie poiver iofrmne fzilesfor tfw purpose oflaying dtozwz the canditiojzs ofseiwc^ mid rea^uiirneni ofpemotzs io be appoinied to public sefwc^s and posis in connection with the affairs of the Umon or any ofthe Staies. Tfzat miicle con^etnplates the drawing up ofaprocedure and fziles io regalate ihe rea^uitment andregulaie ihe sennce a^nditions of appoiniees appointed to pubHc posis, It is zuell acknmvledged ihai be^iuse Qfthis^ ihe entire process of rect^uHment /or se?zdc^s is controlled by deiailed procedures which specify tlie necesswy qualificn.iions, ifw nwde of appoinltnent^ etc. If fziles haife been made under Article 309 of ihe Constitution, ihen the Goveniment can inake appointtnents only in ciccordanee wiih ihe f-uies, Tfie Staie is meani io be a model employer. Tfw E^nployment Exchanges (Coinpiilsofy Notifioatwn of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was enacted to ensare equal oppofiunify for ejnployment seekers, Tfioiigh this Ari may no? oblige an emptoyer to efnploy only those 1^£ persons is^ho have been sponsored by etnployfnent exchwiges, it plaees an obligation on the einployer to noiify ihe vaa^ides that may arise in the iwrlous depwifr^nts and for filling up of those twcancies, based on a procedure. NannaUy, statutory fziles are frmned under the authority of laii^ goveming eniployment li is recognized that no govefnjnent order, notiftcxition or cifrcvfar cx^i be substituiedfor the statutory fziles framed under the auihority oflazu. This is because, folloimng any other course coiild be disastrQiis as it zmll deprive iJw seairity of tenure wzd ihe right of equaliiy confefred on civil sefvajzts under the c^nsfituiwnal schemje. It even wrmunt to negaiing the accepted senice junspnidefwe. Therefore, when. stafutory niles are franwd ui^ler Afiicle 309 of tfw Constituiion which are exhausiive, tfze onlyfair ineafzs to adopt is to make appoiniinents bcised on the fnles soframed.y 12, Iu fhe above case the Supreme Court clearly held that wif ihe Rules haz^e been made under AHicle 309 of ihe Co?isiitution, then the Goi^enwient can make appointfnents only in accordance imth the j-ules^ Aclmittedly, fhe proxnotions of the respondents No. 3 to 7, along wifh ofhers, to the post ofAssistaat Du-ector, Horticulture, have been Hiade not iri accordance with fhe Rules 1987. Rnle 15 of the said Rules, 1987 reads as under- " 15. Preparatioa of List of suitable Offieers.—( 1) The committee shaU prepare a list of STich persons as satisfy the conditioii prescribed ui rale 14 above aiid as are helcl by tlie coiiuiiittee to be suitable for piDHiotioii/transfer to the service. The list shaU be sufficient to cover the aiiticipated vacancies on accotint of retireinent aad proniotion, dunng fhe course of one year from the date of its preparatioii of the selection Ust. A reserve list coiisistiiig of twenty five per cent of fhe uuniber of peraons included iii the said Ust shall also be prepared to meet the unforeseeu vacaiicies duruig the course of flie aforesaid period. (2) The selectiou for iaclusion in such Ust shaU be basecl on merit aad suitability in eJl respect, with clue regard to seniority. (3) The uaaies of flie officers included in the tist shall be arranged in onler of seuiority m fhe service or posts, as specified m column (2) of Schedule IV, at the tlme of prepai'ation ofeach select list: Provicled tliat aiiy junior officer, who ia the opinion of the Committee, is of exceptional nierit end suitabiMty may be assi^ned iii the Ust a higher place fhaH fliat of officers senior to hiiai. Explaiiatiou,—Aperson whose naaie is uichidecl ia a select Ust but wlio is not pronioted during fhe validity of the Mst, shall have no claini to seniority over those coiisiderccl ia a subsequent selection merely by tlie fact of liis earUer selectiou. (4) The list so prepared shaU be reviewed e<iid rcvised evezy year. (5) If, iii the process of selection/review or revision it is proposed to supersede any inember of the service, fhe conimittee shatl recorcl its reasons for the proposed supersession^ 13. The criteria for selection and promotion to fhe post of Assistant Director, Horticulture froia tlie post of Senior Horticiilture Officer is miaimuni recpiired experience of five years aiid merit aiid suitability wifli due rcgard to fhe seniority. The Supreme Coiirt m fhe case of UasioB of India Vs. Mohan La! Capoor aad others { (1973) 2 SCC 836} considerm.g the Regiilation 5 (2) of fhe Indiaii 2^clmiiiistrativ€ Service/Indiaii PoMce Service (AppoiatQient by Promotiou) Regiilatious, 1955, wherc fhe Regulafion 5(2) is pari-materia to Rule 15(2) of the Rules, 1987, held m para. 37, as under:- w37. And, when S(2}says f?zaf tfw selecdonfor inclusion in the lisi be based on fnerit and suiiability in aU respec^s imth regard to seniority, zufiat it means is thatfor mchision in the lisi, merit and swtabiliiy in aU respects shouM be ihe goyeniing cofisideration and that semority shouM play only a secondajy role, It is only z^hen meril an-d suitability are roughly equal ihai seniority witl be a detenniningfactQr, or, ifii is twt fairly possible to make an inter -se of the ir^rit and suitabitity of ti^o eligible and €x?me to a finn c^nclzfsion, senwriiy woutd tilt ihe s<^?e,.^,,,,,,,,,/' — ^ 14. 15. Similaiiy, Mo H» Jo (as he flien obsei-ved iii 22, as uiider:- f(32. Thus, zue thai the ex^frect view, in c^nfonmty the of ii?ords used in the relevant Rules, ?s tfuit (entrancef or <inclusionf tesi for a pla<^ on fhe tist, is (X)mparatnfe applied io all eligible nof mimma? fnarks ai an exmninatiQn. 7?ie Committee an unrestricfed choice of ihe ayailabte taleni, froin mnon^t eligible candidates, detennijwd by reference to reasonable cnteria applied in assessifig thefacte revealed by senfice records of all eligible candidaies ©othai merit not mere seniojity is ihe goveniingfaclor,.,,^^^.^,^^ 5(2) ofthe RegSElatioas, 2-eads as under:- <{5(2) Tfie selectionfor nwlusion in sach list shcill be based on and stuiability in all respec^s regard io seniority.y 1987 reacls as. under:- ((15(3)The sele-ctionfor in such list be based on jnerit in aU respect^ imth due regard to senioniy,ff The above vicw was later 011 referrcd aad affimiecl by £he Supreme Court m tlie case ofB. Vo others Vs. K< Addaaki aad others < (1998) 6 SCC 720^.. Iii of authoritative proiiounceiiients of fhe Supreme Court ia the citecl al^ove, it is clear that tlie DPC hacl not foUowed the criteria of nierit aiid suitability with due regard to se.niority, whUe coiisideriiig flie. cases of flie petitioner aiicl respondents No, 3 to 7 for promotion to fhe post of Assistaiit Dircctor, Horticulturc from tlie post of Senior Horticulture Officer, Thus, tlie DPC proceedio.gs and thereafter tlie promotious of fhe respondents No. 3 to 7 to the post of Assistaiit Director, Horticiilture 011 fhe basis of the priuciple of seiiiority-cuiii-merit is bad and fflegal, beiag not ni acconlaiice witli the provisions of law, The depailmeiital prosiiotion committee proceediiig dated 19,7.2003 is quashecl. 16. For fhe reasons stated above, fhis petition is allowed aiid fhe mipugned order clated 7.8,2003, passecl 011 tlie basis of the recommendatioii aiade by t3ie DPC iii its nieetiiig datecl 19.7.2003, is quashed, The respondents No. 1 aacl 2 are clii'ected to consicler tlie case of the petitioners aloug witli otlier simUarly situated officers for proHiotion to tlie post of Assistaat Director, Horticultiire in accordaiice with the provisions ofthe Riiles, 1987, as on 19,7.2003, wiflini a periocl of tliree inouths from the clate of receipt of a copy of fliis order, No oider as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Thakur