BEO THE HIG COURT O JUDIA‘IURE AT JABALPUR WRIT PETIHON mo s 3 (" ¢> 97: PETITON I UDER N AmICLE 2622 2/7 OF T‘IE OPITUTION OF INDIA CNS PETIT IONER : UDHAV RAM SAHU, S/o Shri ariSh hand sahu, Aged aboat 8 yrs, Working as ermanent Timekeeper n Public Works epartment of Municipal Ccrporation Durg(M.P) : R/o hikshak Nagar, Gali N.1, Ner THE MUNICIPAL CPORATIO ORN, Burg, Throug.its Comissioner Municipal Corporation, (M P) 2 HR NARAYAN SINGH THAKUR, S/o‘ ate Cta Singh Thakur, wk r oring as Water Woks Inspector, ‘7 Municiygl Corporation (M.P) _ ITION UNDER ART s d a Tilak hool (M.P): -VERSUS- £1 k 1 h m, DURG . . SI L hen ,DURG IS 6/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FRE H F C : . ¢ A9 H Cra 3 ea P i D Sc Durq WWW . @ CE 22 N Ewm GQCWM Om OiIbQjwmwbmx ..wF.»mvCm «amm. $mlm‘nGL26. wwwmOm V§ww€ “Layman; mE mm" .r. “nwwmw a0%c«m§,o3 m. >3o§ma Wénw vmwwwoa gnaw» >nm Nwmmmmw 9awxm nanmmwmaam o mag mwmm.m mwbnwUmasgm mg mmmmvx. n é a g g u (r xll|:::)allnill¢i!.!.illnr ||i|..|I..!.i.il:iz:i;itiny‘| .uuqwwmvn v mg Mmwwmw w. ymwmgwmm. uccummw o.‘ Mrm wmmwwagmw. §w mymwaxm m w n m g w , momsmmw wanwxm”.mmvgngmwm 2o}? mg kmmaa Umammwm” nomzwmn mew”rm«mmwgamvh39m. mummmmn. om mam MM“.amw ow0&3? Naomw §m§ wym ooawmnwowwmmanmm nocnmmw mvvmwnam 3H Wwm vmamw. Mymvmmmmom Wmwmmwg mammw. mw mewnmmmo?§m vmwwmaa‘dmw mmmxw m awqmnman 3 noymEmw ”3w ammm Om”vb .Uwmmwsmw 3w $03333 78 m5 va£a”émwma Eowwm mmmvmnwo” “a wxmmwmw mmwoxu‘nmm wmvmnamsw ow mxm wmmvomgmaécanwvmm 00%2wmo? Uvhm AWQ $3 .wwm w «mwv¢mnm%.wow. oammawcv 365;” Mam amww mam $mva§m£ Kan “(Em vwowsowmn rm. é.m.: $-wnwwmm(a w“ nauwmnmmnwwm, mmmmmwm. wmmEWm w.a Mym .vmwaosmw .émm mvwwwa.mmd3 ,wmmum” am4M3m 9a mm¢vwq o3 wwwkmmw Axwsmmxcwm 1 E mg.mgm wmmvanumi “sawémw mvmnwnwma mw .mgm Wmmwmq on .3-muwmmw. qym wmwvomammwhoanwmaos g.Quma um.mugum;mwm$.n3mxmam I mg vwogowma ”3m gmmvomawnwZa.m3 ”3m wow» 9a§mwmw $~2wm “mmvmgox on m5 3mmmnmwm §Q0-Nm$ wmwuaam Wwm omwm 0m”Tum .vmwwmonmw. «yawn mam .wmmmon § d bx‘ S Agrawai, éearned ccunsei appearmg foi' *éhe petitimer, m wouid submit thai the petiiiona was appainted or; 7-8-1 98? an 'the pay scab 515-10—575-15—84G Whereas the respanéent N62 was subsequenéw appointed an 10—8-3Q8g (Annexure — PIE) an ccmpassiona’ie graund for a periad of twc years giobaiicn. "fhus, the petiticner. being senior as Time Keegiea §s eatiiied to be c0nside¥ed and gafomoted t0 ihe post cf Water Wake iyaspectsr, but the feseona‘ent-Cemoratacn ignering ihe case 6f the eeémceer far pmmotien ts the poet of Wetei Werks inseecim pmmoted ihe :espendent N62 to the said gavel The said act of ihe resnendent~Cerpcreiian is iliegai, arbiwaw and umeaeaeab§e ir: seppcri cf ms con‘kemian. ieameé ccunsei appeeiina for ihe g: i§€§ener §§aced his reiieace upm ihe decisiee of ihe Sugm'eme Ceurtxeneered in Mueicip’ei Ceigaratien, Reieur vs. éshok Kumer iifiisre1 and upon the decisien e? this Gem: :eadered i3“: ‘i‘ijeram 33m; ve Wager N§gem3 Eurg E; mixers 2 . Ms Singhei‘ eamed counseé aegaearing fa: the reependemt— E Camoratiee, wouid sabmii the: thee-were m service mies avaiiabie in ihe year 1996‘ “i‘he aepcintmente em‘ premotione were made an the basis 0f ordei‘s and s'esoiuiions eassed by ihe Standing Commisee em Mayer ei’ the {espcndent- carporatim. Wis Singhei wouiel fugihei' submié that er; the basis cf reseiutien eateci 28-§-‘i9§6 passed by ihe Sianéing Commii‘iee, ihe {essendeni N02 was emmeted to the pas: of Watea' Works inspector, as ihe mimmum quaiificetien required Q1 CE i :‘igeix -‘ sec 325 {NP N'ce25 of wee (decides on Qeemos) far ihe saa‘ci ,mst was Matric {Science}, The §eiii§orger does mt passess :he reqmsi‘ée qua€%ficatian far promo€§ng i9 {he pas? “f Wa€ef Works inspector, £3 S§nghai wcuM next' stibmii ihaé iha pmmaien sf the fesporadent No.2 §s na‘; an éhe bas§s G: ser:§ea‘§i‘y aéane. $a§iabi§%iy and e§§gi§§iiiy é3 éa be seen far mgmotian and appcmiment an the wsi ea” ‘w ‘a‘ter Warks mspeciar. .i‘aibaafz this fat-‘1: éhé gjétéiianer has been informed unéer *ihe R§ght ie infermaibn Act, 2005 Vida ie’aer dated 227—2806“ Adcg‘ééng éhe submissions made by Ms $§nghai, §eamed mama: appearmg fa: the :53pandem Next 8hr; Artam Eadariya, ieamed counsei apgearing fer the respana‘ent N02,, wouEd sabrmt ihat the {aspondenf No.2 rendered his semces in tee V aéer Resources Department and his case was cehs§dereci fer memeticn is ‘the pee“: oi Water We? s énspector 3m accoreance with gaw. Even eéeerwee! me reseoedent N02 possesses the requésite gua5ia‘icat§en fer the gost of Water Wwks inspector. There we no ruies, whieh requife ecnsEees'aticn o? Time Keeyers €or premwen of the basis of mefit-cum-senieriiy or senéciity-cum-merit. Sm Deeeriye weuid farmer seem}? 3513i me {espenéent Nc.2 haé eiready campieieé pmbaeon eefore ‘zee éeie his eaee was cansétiered fay promotion te the pest of Water Wci'ks inspectoa i have heard ieemeé eeunse§ apeeerimg for ‘ihe eeriiee, perused the gieeémgs and ihe dowments appeneed tnereie , . The deciskm cf the Supreme Cami rendered in §r€ura§ci§a €erperaiien, Raéyur vs. Ashok Kramer r‘v’iiera {supra}, sited “:1 g; '§ 0. by ieameci caunse§ awearmg §cr the peiiéicrzer! is on the £ermina€ian of probationer. Thus, me same isvnc’z appiicabie ta &he facis cf iha present case, as :he terminatmn of a probati‘ener or otherwise is not inveWed §n the case on hand. Aneiher ciecésien citee by Earned eoense§ for the pamenef ile. fhe e‘ecieian sf th§s Court rendered in Tijefam $ahe {supra} is aiee net reieven‘t to me fecis 0f fhe pyesent case, e3 in ihe pfeseni case no mies geveming ehe service conditions of the emo§oyees were m existemoe a? the time whee we {esponden€-Corporeé§on oensiéyed ihe case of the Respondent No.2 foi’ promoiion. §t appears éhei the respondem No.2 has been promoted to the eosi of Weie! Wwks inaeeeier or; ne tasks of requiei£e qua§é§caiéon he. Metfio {Somme}. 4.1 'fhe Standing Commii'tee of the reepondent—Cevperetion in £3 meeting decieee to poe‘: Water Works €hspeotor, who has mie§mum queiifieation o§ Metric {Science}, es is evédem from ihe note sheet e§reo§ated, during ihe course of hearéng. Thus, ihe oieim of the peiitioner on €he ground of seniomy e§one oenno‘: be aocepEd. in view of foregoing, mere is no iiiegaiit‘y or infirmity in the o‘ecision taken by rhe responder: -Corooration for promoriog the respono‘en‘r No.2 to the ooet of Water Works inspector. Thus, the peéitioner is not eniiiied to any reiief. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the wrii oetiiion is oismissed. No order asto oosis. Gowri W 1 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ii.