!- r v ar IN THE IVI.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR (^p(})^^(oy ORIGINAL APPLICATION N0, ^--OFT999 Applicant -f' Respojidents .r S.R. Singh (Shri Ram Singh) Son of Late P. N. Singh age 53 years Senior Research Assistant Town & Counrty Planning Department Raipur(M.P.) VERSUS j^. State of M.P. Through Secretary Housing & Environment Department Bhopal (M.P.) . General Administrative Department through Principal Secretary Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.) F Town & Counrty Planning Department through Direrctor Shed No. 1, North T.T. Nagar Bhopal (M.P.) ^A. Joint Director Town & Country Planning. R.D.A. Building Raipur(M.P.) »B «-. 1 5. Shri P.C. Raikwar Assistant Direetor Research Town & Country Planning District Office, Bilaspur (M.P.) 6. Shri J.P. Mishra • Senior Research Assistant Town & CQuntry Planning Department Rewa (M.P.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTIQN 19 OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985 ^'F< ^ t HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.2975 OF 2005 PETITIONER S.R. Singh (Shri Ram Singh) RESPONDENTS Versus State of M.P. (now State of Chhattisgarh) & Others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms Fouzia Mirza & Ms. Farah Minhaz, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri Ashish Shrivastava & Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocates for the respondent No.5. None for the respondent No.6. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 18th day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the promotion order dated 26-3-1999 (Annexure - A/6) passed in respect of the respondent No.5 and further sought a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion according to the seniority list on the post of Assistant Director, Town & Country Planning Department, 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Investjgator at Bilaspur in ihe Department of Town & Country Planning on 19-2-1973. Thereafter, he Vi/as promoted to the posts of Research Assistant and Senior Research Assistant by orders dated 13-10-1977 and 9-3-1990, respectively. The respondent No.5 was also appointed on the post of Investigator on 19-5-1973. From the gradation list, it appears that the petitioner belongs to general category and the respondent No.5 belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. The respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Senior Researeh Assistant by taking advantage of accelerated promotion by superseding 4 members by order dated 9-10-1992. According to the petitioner, the respondent ), :!;.!•- -'';~~^^ . s~'%, •y 2 No.5 was Junior to the petitioner to the post of Senior Research Assistant by 2 years 7 months. Again, the respondent No.5 promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Research) by superseding 2 superiors on the basis of reservation roster. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24-5-1999to the respondent No.3, which was duly recommended by the respondent No.4. Houvever, the said representation 1was rejected by order dated 16-6-1999 in an illegal and arbitrary manner without considering the facts and circumstances ofthe in its letterand spirit. Thus, this petition. Ms Fouzia Mira, learned counsel appearing with Ms. Farah Minhaz, learned Advocate, submits that the petitioner is entitled to and have a right under the provisions of the Constitution of India to be promoted on the post of Assistant Director, TOWR & Country Planning Department. In spite of the above, the respondent No.5 has been promoted by superseding the petitioner, which is illegal, and arbitrary. The promotion given to the i'espondent No.5 is not only prejudicial, but detrimental also to the constitutional right ofthe petitioner.- The impugned action of the respondent authorities is also against the well settled provisions of law. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State as well as Stiri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing with Shri Harsh Wardhan, learned Advocate, for the respondent No.5, submit that the promotion order has been passed in respect of the respondent No.5 only on the basjs of reservation roster and in accordance with the well settled principles sf law. The representation of the petitioner has been considered in detail and thereafter, rejected the same by a speaking order. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Learned counsel further submit that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the respondent £E^ir. ;'%- 6. No.5 because the respondent No.5 belongs to reserve category whereas the petitioner belongs to general category. Learned counsel submit that during pendency ofthe present writ petition, by order dated 27-6-2006 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Research) and thereafter, he retired from the service on 30-6-2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. In rejoinder, Ms. Fouzia Mirza, submits that the respondent No.5 has submitted. a false and fabricated social-status certificate for which enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry report, it was clarified that the respondent No.5 produced the false social status certificate. Thereafter, a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondent No.5, therefore, the respondent No.5 is liable to be terminated from the service, but the State Government is not taking any action against the respondent No.5. At this juncture, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, submits that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the social status of the respondent No.5. Even otherwise, the Collector has no authority to enquiry about the social status of the respondent No.5 in view of verdicts given by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others and in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others . The only authority under the law to examine the social status ^of a person is the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. ' (1994) 6 SCC 241 2WP(S)No.33380F2007 .<. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 8. It is indisputable that the respondent No.5, who belongs to reserved category, was promoted against the roster point for reserved category. The petitioner belongs to general category, thus even ifthe petitioner was seniorto the respondent No.5, the petitioner could not have been considered and promoted to the post, which, under the roster, was allocated for the reserved category. 9. The next contention that there is an allegation and it was found subsequently that the respondent No.5 did not belong to reserve category, which is pending consideration, on that ground also the roster point allocated to the reserved category cannot be allocated to general category and the enquiry is still pending consideration. 10. The contention of Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner thatsince the respondent No.5 has played fraud by producing a false caste certificate, the candidature of the petitioner has not been considered and promoted to the higher post cannot be countenanced. One Shri G.P. Sharma belonging to general category, was senior to the petitioner. Even if the same is considered, the petitioner would not have a rightful claim to the post. 11. When the vacancy for general category was available, it was informed by the learned counsel appearing for the State, the petitioner has already been promoted to the post ot' Assistant Director (Research) on 27-6-2006 i.e. just before the date of retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. on 30-6-2006. 12. So far as entitlement of the petitioner with regard to other benefits is concerned, the same is not the subject matter and, as such, 1 am not inclined to express any opinion on this issue. 13. In the result and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri