p: EN THb $Tu‘I‘E ADMENISLRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF MADHYAPRADESH. JABALPUR cm NonW /89 APPLICANT : Satyacieo Gupta a v/s RE PONDENT: state of M.P. and Othersg . A?PLICATI[CN UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMmlgTP}? '3 TIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985» DETAIL O3? THE APPLICATEON 1. Partiqulara of the'a‘pggcanfs: z (1) Name of the applicant g SATYADEO GU13? . (iimame of the father (iii) Designation and office in whiqh employed: ’Upper Divison Teacher, Govda. Hr. $ec.$chool . GAYAPRASAD GUPTA. u Manendragarh, Distt‘ Surguja . (iv) Office adresg :SATYADEO GUP'I‘A.UPPER DIVISON TEACHER . GOVT . HR . SEC . SCHOOL . MANENDRAGARH . SURGUJA .M . P. (v) Adress for service of all notice z "6.0.“ 2. Particular of the reswondents : (i) Ccmmisionex, Adivasi Vikas o ’ ' G"’4’?#ul~ (?1)Commisioner‘ Adivasi Vikas, Madhyapraéesh, BHOPAL'. 3. Particulars of) the order aoainst which gpg}ic_a;tio_r_;_ is made a The appl catl6n 1 aoalnst the following order : w ¢ iii. Pastgea by —A¢st. Commlsloner Aalvasl Vlkas BILt uPURo iv . Junior £are promoteo", name o£ the applicant could not be considerd because his name has. b N) / 3.. Order 1 hxkshu/Esi:ta\/ 88-89 3742 Bilaspur i;.&atea 21 .12 .88. c/'/ _...2... “ e WWW mac mam (WE) \ WW#MW $3§Hané€t $m: Hom’Me shri Mamwé :a Mohan Skxivastava, J. 25.92.2010 Shri Dilip Dubey, co Shri Ajit Singh} Pan: ThiS pétition has b account of non—promotion supersession on account dated 21. 12.1988 (Annext mmWanéaT The case of the pet tioner is that he was initially appointed as Lower Division Teacher} on 6.4. 1972. Petitioner appeared in the BA. examination after tak and obtained BA. degree promotion on the post of 4.8.1986 (Annexure R-I: 27.11.1987 (Annexure 5) Teachers who could no‘i promoted in the year 2.11.1977. In View of this of SeniOIity on the pos't malmer itwaS granted to promoted from time to tme after 1977 as many of them were 3n the basis of the seniority granted to juniors to the petiiioner. unsel for the petitioner. :1 Lawyer for the State] respondente. zen filed by the petitioner aggm'eved on to the post of Head Master and alleged of promotion of his juniors vide order re G). ing due permission from the Department in the year 1977. Petitioner was granted Upper Division Teacher vide order dated ). Respondents passed an order on bV which those seniors Lower Division be pmmoted and their juniors were 1977, were granted seniority w.e.f. , the petitioner was also entitled to grant 3f Upper Division Teacher in the same arge number of Upper Division Teachers mmmanésr ”2% m wqi$ .................................. .. an 2 metm (W) WW#WW a; @anéa those Uppsr Division Teaqhers from 2.11.1977, they were further posted as Head Master i1} Various schools. In the said list also, number of Upper Division Teachers are those who were juniors to the petitioner, but were granted seniority as Upper Division Teacher in View of the order dated 24. 1 1. 1987(A1mexure —5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as large Teachers who were juniors to him and ivision Teachers from time to time were from 2. 11.1977 vide order dated 27.11.1987, petitioner was also entitled to be granted such seniority. His submission number of Lower Division were promoted as Upper 13 granted seniority W. e.f is that relaxation granted should have been extended even in cases where Senior Lower Division Teachers could not be promoted on the ground that they are not possessed of graduation. He further mbmits that as relaxation was granted in respect of those teachers who were not trained, there was no reason not to extend similar benefits to the petitioner also in granting seniority with all consequential benefits in the matter of promotion and posting to higher post. i On the other hand, respondenfS/State that in Lower Division Teachers promotion and they’suffere of their juniors who were submission of learned counsel for the the past, large number of graduate o were not trained, were not granted supersession on account of promotion ained. The dispute was taken to the 0 h Emmi-{mm -g/ mmiwm aiWanésr directions WEre issued to ' :onsider the cases of petitioners therein for promotion as Upper Division Teacher. Consequent thereupon, ordCr was issued on 27.1 Learned counsd for the re: Where Lower Division Tea‘ not be granted promoticn order of the High Court aJ applicable in cases of thos even graduate. According t to Claim any such parity i 2.11.1977, even though gramted that benefit becau: case of the petitioner who the year 1977. I have heard lealned records. It is not in dispute graduation in the year 1S Deyartmental Promotion C in the yeaecL984, but no o deparunentai inquiry égaiii 3 ended in his exoneraiion, i Committee keet in the se: were given effect to; ieadin ,.1987 (Annexure -5) granting seniotity. .pondents submits that those were cases :her were otherwise graduate but could as they were not trained, The aforesaid 1d the order dated 27.11.1987 was not e Lower Division Teachers who were not 3 him, petitioner is therefore not entitled n the matter of grant of seniority wef. junior Lower Division Teachers were se they all were graduate, as against the obtained graduation certificate only in counsel for the parties and perused the that petitioner had obtained degree of >77. His case was considered by the iommittée (for brevity “the Committee”), ‘rder was/passed in View of pendency of st him. Later on, departmental inquiry Vhereupon the recommendations of the ‘7 aied cover were opened, and the same g to issuance of order of promotion on W gqi$ W20 am?W (W) M m mai$ 1 20 311%21 nails (WE) mmmaméei vgy mm#mm $wm 4.8.1986 (Annexure R—II). Petitioner was granted senion'ty vide order dated 4.8.1986 by providing that in the gradation list of Upper Division Teachers, petitioner would be entitled to be placed over and above junior most. Later on, an order was passed on 27. 1 1. 1987 (Annexure—5) by which all those graduate senior Lower Division Teachers who cohld not be promoted as Upper Division Teacher for Want of training were benefited and granted seniority as Upper Division Teacher w.e.f. 2. 1 1. 1977. Submission of the responents that petitioner was not. entitled to be granted st niority on the post of Upper Division Teacher as was done in tlte case of other Upper Division Teachers vide order dated 27.11.1i987 (Annexure-S), needs consideration. l Petitioner has stated that i e had obtained degree of graduation in the year 1977. Neither e petitioner nor the respondents have placed on record as to Wh ther the non—promotion of the petitioner as Upper Division Teacher as on account of he beiné untrained or on account of he being no possessed of graduation. The fact that the petitioner obtained gr duation in 1977 has not been disputed by the respondents. H wever, respondents maintained that petitioner was not a gradu te teacher and that was the reason why he was not granted pro Odom/Entire case of the respondents proceedsonwstatement tha the benefit of seniority was coniined to those class of graduate teachers who got their promotion belatedly on the ground th t earlier they were not trained. In case 1 d WI §m:$ .................................... i111 20 snéar w (1am) mm§ww .gf asWanésl Eamwa%am%$ Sinha the petitioner had also obtained degree in graduation in 1977 and the only reason for his non—promotion was that he was aiso not trained, he would be entitled to the same benefit as was conferred vide order dated 27.11.1987 to large number of Upper Division Teachers promoted from tune to time. I, therefore, hereby direct respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner. If i is found that. though the petitioner was graduate, yet he was deni d promotion only on the ground that he was not trained. he will b entailed to the same benefit as accrue to Upper Division Te hers vide order dated 27.11.1987 (Annexure-5) and conseq ential benefits of assignment to higher post of Head Master as was grahted to number of Upper Division Teachers vide order dated 21.12.1988. However, if the operative reason for non—promotion was that the petitioner was not graduate on the relevant date as per the criteria adopted by the Committee and as per the rules, no such benefit shail accrue to the petitioner. With the direction as aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- _ ‘ 7‘ by” Manindra Mohan Shrivastava‘ Judge