^\ •^ I.CC tsEFGRE THE HON*BLE SSATE ADMENISTRAl'IVE ihiBU|iAL3 BENCH RAIPUR-M.P. ^ f i.bunaf, <^ <^^^ ^S-2.1^ Bhagwat Prasad Sarve, Aged about 44 Yrs, S/O.ShriChhedilal Sanre Working as Supervisor in Intigrated Child Development Service Kunkuri, Distt.Jasptar-M.P, ...APPLICANT '^ 1, YERSUS State o£ M.P, Through: Chief Secretary Govt»ofM,P• G^-fa^ Ci^^-l 2, Director, Directorate of Social We3&re Govt.of M.P.Bhopal 5. Director Directorate of Mahila Avam Bal Vikas, M.P.BHOPAL ^ss 4< Secretary Panchayat Avam Gramin Vikas N.P.Bhopal 5< Secretary M^PePublic Service Commission, G^altor Boarding Hoyse^ Residential Area, Indore-M.P. ••NON-APPLICANTS APPLICATION UiSDER SECTION 19-ADMENISTRATIVE TRIBUjjA-LS ACT. ^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTISGARH: BILA8PVR Slng^e Bench: Hoa*ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Petitiouer Respondents W. P. (sl No. 2783 of2005 Bhagwat Prasad Sawe Versus State of Madhya Pradesh fi& Ofhers Shri N,K, Vyas, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Paael lawyer for the respondents/State. ORALORDBR (27th July, 2006) 1, The petitk>ner was appomted as Supervi^>r m the Dircctorate of Social Wetfarc by order dated 16,4,1985 and fhereafter, he was sent on deputation to fhe Mahila Avani Bal Vikas Departaient m March, 1994. The petitioner contiaued to work isi MahUa Avam Bal Vikas Department 2. The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a notification dated 26.9.1996 (Annexure-V) for recruitment of Additional Assistant Developmient Conuaissioner ia fhe Panchayat and Rural Welfare Departaient. 3. Applications were invited from fhe employees working in fhe departments of Revenue^ Agriculture, Cooperative, Paxichayat and Rural Welfare, Mahila and Bal Vikas, Tnbal Welfare, Employment, Husbandiy^ Dauy and Fishexy, who had worked for 5 years ia the said departoaient. 4. The petitioner adm.ittedly, haviag beeii appoiiited ia March, 1994 on deputation, continued to work in Maliila Avam Bal Vikas Departaien.t for inore than 5 years till fhe notification was issued and accordingty he had also made an applicatk)n. ^' 8. After havmg gone fhrough the recruitaient process, fhe petitioner was declared as STiccessfiil and he found place in fhe select list at serial No. 178 against 250 posts. Out of 250 poste, 45 posts were reserved for Schediiled Tribes aod fhe name of tibie petitioner ia the select list of Scheduled Tribes was at serial No, 17. The appointnient of the petitioner was rejected on the graund fhat the parent departnient of fhe petitioner is School Education Departaient. The esseutial quallfication required in tihie advertisement was not that the employees should be froiEn fhe saine department^ as stated above, but the candidate would have worked for 5 years ia any of fhe above stated departaiente. The petitioner satisfied the required essential quaUfication as notified in tbe adverttsenient dated 26.9,1996 (Annexure-V) Leamed coiinsel appearing for tiie petitioner fiirther subnxits fhat there is no reqziirenient fhat fhe eniployees should not have lien m the departaient, as stated above, froin which the appUcations were invited. The workiag of the petitioner ia Mahila Avaia Bal Vikas DepartiBeiit is not disputed, Clause 4 (Tl) offhe notification reads as under:- <<(Tt) ^iq%«q» 5ff€<TT1?—*ii'<<ai W<T i^%<if^eii<7i<< ^ ^Hici* ^cn^r iyp<r ^ cpi^Mitciqi siton^/^N ^nft «t»|44lf^t4»«<»4^11^ ^lt 1^» *l^y^Sil ?TTiBFT ^ PtM^if^id f^rprf ^' "^ l^ft ^ft f^*TPT ^ 5 ^ ^t •^qr r^ •3^ ^^ -^ — ^p3R^. ^tft. ^l^cblf^dl. M^I'AI^ ^ ilpftnT l^qiKT. ^cTT ^ ^M f^tTO. 3ITf^ET ^Trf^T +cnyi"l. '^fflT^ <l»e<<lul. H^Mlcll. ^^t, *iy<?ft ^TRR I^HI<1 1 Cl €ft— <yic|<<<» ^ ^TRT K»M-t[<W 31^<TT ^11^4'rt 1^ ^1^^ ^*^ ^t ^rt^n l^rfe ^ra* ^n ^rf^i ^11^4^ ^^ ^St sff^m f^r ^ ^K ^rit '"ft f^ri^ ^t ^ici^* 3|^<TT 3Tf^?T q>^ ^T^ ^tl^<t4* ^d4^<W (^5lllt-r1 'V^ ^ ^T^ ^lR^ ^t^ ^t ^TRRTT 7l€t^1t F 9. I have heard learaed couasel for fhe parties and perused fhe rccords appended to the petition. 10. Bare readuig of the essential quaUfication prescribed ui the notification dated 26.9,1996 (Annexure-V) niakes it clear fhat tiie condition is working m any of the departments for 5 years and not fhat the employees, who have lien m the department alone shoidd apply. Hence, fhe order dated 5.12.1998 (Annexure-I) passed by fhe rcspoadent/State is bad aad deserves to be quashed. The petitioner cannot be graiited appomtment w.e,f. 1996^ m view of the fact that fhe persons appomted have settled their rights aiid they caa not be disturbed after a penod of 10 years. 11. However, ia the facts of the case when fhe matter is pendmg in Tribunal/Court siace 1999, fhe petitioner cannot be denied his legal right, which has accrued to him on fhe basis of the advertisement and selectioii fhereof. Accordiagly, fhe respondente are directed to consider aiid pass appropriate order ofappoiatment wifh notional senionty aad ofher benefits w.e.f. fhe date, fhe petitioner becanie entifled to be appoiated. 12. The petition is accordingly aUowed. No order a^ to costs, Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge