BEFORE THE M .P. STATE AD‘DNISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALFUR {g O.A’. NO. __ w PLsv ’1L+57’a$ BETWEggg ‘/Dr. Balaau Prasad Shanna Son of Pandit Jgnwant Prasad Shanna aged about ‘33jyears, Vice Pr‘nc1pa1 of Govt. Mu1t1 Purpose Higher Secondary School, Durg, istt. mrg, M.P. APPL ICANT AND RESPONDENTS a. 1 state of Madhya Praaesh through the Secretary, Deptt. of School Education 'Valiabh BhaWan; Bhopal 2 Director of Public Instruction, Bhopal, M.P. 3 Joint Director, Education; mrg Bivision Dur, M.P 4 R N. Verma, Frintnpal, Higher Secondary School, Utai now posted as Asstt. mrector, Fducatlon, Burg, M.P. 5 R.D. Gupta, Dy. Director of Education, through the Director, Public Instruction; BhOp a1 , M .\P‘. 6 'A.B. rubey, Jb. Director, Eé‘ucation, Raipur Division, Raipur, M .P . APPL ICAT ION ‘ UNDER S ECT ION 19 OF THE Am INIST RAT IVE TR EUNA ACT, 1985 w _ \ D , g L S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1 24512005 PETITIONER Dr. Baldau Prasad Sharma Versus The Statg of Madhya Pradesh and others RESPONDENTS W"? $inqle gengh: H9n’ble Shri Maningyg Mphan Shrivastava, J _ FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF ORDER ' Sd/- 1 Manindra Mohah Shfivastava ‘ Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH g BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN IS) NO.1 24512005 PETITIONER Dr. Baldau Prasad Sharma Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. 4. 9 Present: - Shri Raghvendra Verma, counsel for the petitioner. k- A, Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.3 to 3. None for respondents No.4 to 6. ORDER (Passed on this “#‘day of January, 201 0) he“ This petition is filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of command by suitable writ order or direction to promote and post the petitioner on the post of Deputy Director, Joint Director of Education, over and above respondents No.4, 5 & 6 on the pay scale admissible to the above post. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be directed to grant seniority over and above the , respondents No.45 & 6 and to pay all arrears of salary and other emoluments. 35>- . (2) As stated in the petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Teacher in the Department of Education on 01-08-1960 and was thereafter promoted as Upper Division Teacher on 10-08-1966. He was further promoted on the post of Lecturer on 31-01-1970. Time bound promotion and higher pay scale of senior Lecturer was also'granted to the petitioner in the year 1983. At the time of tiling of the petition, the petitioner was working as Vice Principal in Govt. Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Durg where he was //\ posted at 19-08-1994. The details of the service career of the petitioner and the \ / i respondents No.4, 5, & 6 have. been stated in Annexure A—3 ‘along with the petition. (3) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents No.4 to 6 were sewing in private school having been appointed on various dates and were later on i absorbed in Govt. service by orders of absorption issued on different dates, the v; details of which have been annexed by the petitioner in the Annexure A-3. f According to the petitioner, he came to know about the absorption of respondents No.4 to‘6 in the year 1995 and their promotion to the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary Schools. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 was posted as Assistant Director of Education at Durg in the office of Deputy Director. Respondent No.5 has been promoted as Deputy Director of Education on 30-05- 1992 and the respondent No.6 has beenpromoted and posted as Joint Director in the month of June. 1994. Having come to know about the said promotions. postings of respondents No.4 to 6, the petitioner made representation vide Annexure A-1 ventilating grievances to the effect that the respondents No.4 to 6 are much junior to the petitioner in the service career and they have been promoted to the post of Deputy Director. Assistant Director and Joint Director of Education whereas the petitioner is senior to them as he has working as Lecturer right from 31-01-1970 whereas respondent No.4 was appointed as Lecturer on 17-03-1981, respondent No.5 as Upper Division Teacher on 01-07-1967 and respondent No.6 as Upper Division Teacher on 01-1 0-1 969 as per the information of the petitioner. Referring to the details given in the petition vide Annexure A-3, it has been claimed that the petitioner is much senior to the respondents No.4 to 6 in all respect and therefore he is entitled to bepromoted on the post of Deputy Director and Joint Director in the Department but has been illegally ignored despite repeated representations. v I (4) The petitioner has also stated that the respondents wete not qualified to be appointed and absorbed on the post of Principat. According to him, in View of the Government Circular dated 21-1 2-1967 vide Annexure A-4. the respondents No.4 to 6 were not eligibie for being absorbed on the post of Principal. The petitioner further says that he is highly qualified and awarded Ph.D. Degree in Hindi and has also completed B. Ed. Training in the year 1965. He has a blotless career in the Department of Education and his work has been appreciated by all concerned. (5) In the return tiled by the respondents No.1 to 3, the claim of the petitioner has been denied by stating that in view of the policy decision taken by the Government to take over various school run by Non-government agencies, respondents No.4 to 6, who were workingin the private school, taken over by the l government. were absorbed. Policy letter dated 21-12—1967. (Annexure R-1) which has-also been referred to by the petitioner, is claimed to have been followed in the matter of absorption on the post of Head Master, Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools. (6) it has been further stated in the return that the respondents No.4 to 6 were absorbed, colleges in which they were working, were taken over in accordance with the said policy. It has been further stated that the qualification and experience of the respondents No.4 to 6 were taken into account by the State Government and it was found that they all were qualmed in accordance with the policy letter dated 21-12-1967 (Annexure R-1). lt has been stated that respondents No.4 to 6 were working on the post of Principal of Higher Secondary School since long. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have also denied that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer in the year 1970. They have stated that from records/service book of the petitioner, it is revealed that earlier he was working as Lower Division Teacher/Upper Division Teacher and was appointed as a fresh Lecturer by an order dated 20-01 ~1970 which is clear from a relevant extract of service book tiled‘as Annexure R—3. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have further stated that the policy decision of the government to take over private colleges and consequent absorption of the services of the teachers, Head Masters and Principals of those colleges cannot be questioned by the petitioner which has been taken in the interest of public at large and the same cannot be said to be in any manner bad and illegal. According to respondents No.1 to 3, the said policy is reasonable and rational and it being in the realm policy decision, could not be interfered with and is beyond scope of judicial review unless it is shown to be arbitrary, malatide or unreasonable. According to the respondents No.1 to 3, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the policy is in any manner arbitrary, malafide or unreasonable. it is further submitted that as far as claim based on acquisition of Ph.D. Degree is concerned, separate rules for grant of benefit to persons holding Ph.D. Degree have been framed and the petitioner has received additional increments being holder of PhD. Degree. (7) No return has been filed by the respondents No.4 to 6. ln the rejoinder, the petitioner has repeated its assertion that the respondents No.4 to 6 were wrongly absorbed. lt has been stated that along with the return, necessary documents in support of the pleadings in the return relating to details of service of respondents No.4 to 6 have not been placed on record to show how they were appointed in private school, when they were appointed in private sch! Tat was the pay scale of their service and post. lt has also (8) Wm m *‘k @ been stated that nothing has been placed on record to show any approval from PSC has also been obtained. The petitioner has aiso controverted respondents’ statement that he was given fresh appointment as Lecturer in the year 1970. The L petitioner refers to gradation list dated 01-04-1991 to contend that in the said gradation list the petitioner is shown to have been promoted on the post of Lecturer on 20-01-1970 and given seniority accordingly and therefore it is incorrect to say that he was given fresh appointment as Lecturer on 20-01 -1 970. @- (9) l have heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the records of the case. (1 0) From the pleadins and relief sought by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner has not challenged the legality and validity of the absorption policy of the teachers of taken over from the private colleges promulgated by the Government vide its earlier letter dated 21-12-1967 (Annexure R/1). The claim of the petitioner that the respondents No. 4 to 6 were wrongly absorbed, has therefore to be examined with reference to the said policy letter dated 21-12— 1967. A perusal of the policy letter in clause 3 shows that for absorption on the post of Head Masters, Principal of a high/higher secondary school, the person concerned should possess the post graduate degree and should have worked on the post for minimum period of 7 years in the same institution and should have 1O years teaching experience in any of the recognized institution of Madhya Pradesh. ln the return. respondents No.1 to 3 have been categorically stated that respondents No.4 to 6, who were working in different private schools which were taken over by the State Government and pursuant to the taking over of the x schools and absorption of the employees in the government service and .3 conseqUent upon which the order of absorption in respect of respondents No.4 to i ~ 9" em a ,_4wk ‘ M- ?a“ 6 were issued. lt has also been stated that while considering respondents No.4 to 6 for absorption. their qualification and experiense were taken into account and it K was found that an of them were qualified in accordance with the poiicy tetter framed by the government From the details submitted by the petitioner himself in Annexute A-3 It is clear that respondent No 4-R L Verma was initiatiy appointed on 20-07-1973 as Lecturer and was promoted as Prmcrpai on 22-09-1976. Respondents have in their return that he was working as the Principal of the W Higher Secondary Schooi. Kalankpur since 22“ September, 1976. According to the information given by the petitioner, respondent No.4 was absorbed on 21-02- 1986. Respondent No.5 was initially appointed as Upper DivisionTeacher on 01- 07-1967 and was thereafter promoted as Lecturer on 01-07—1 968 and thereafter he was again promoted on the post of Principai with effect from 01-01-1 972 and absorbed on the said post on 17—03-1 981 Respondents No 1 to 3 have stated in his return that respondent No.5 was aiso possessed of post graduate degree qualification and was working as Principai of Govt. Higher Secondary Schooi ‘w.e.f.01-01-1972. The petitioner in his document Annexure A-3 has stated that respondent No.6—A.B. Dubey was initialiy appointed as Upper Drvrsron Teacher on $01-10-1969 and was thereafter promoted as Lecturer w.e.f. 01-12-1969 and thereafter he was again promoted on the post of Principal w.e.f. 01 -04-1 972. He was absorbed on the said post from 17-12-1979. Respondents No.1 to 3 have stated in their return that the respondent No.6 was also possessed post graduate i ‘ degree and was working as Prrncrpal in Govt. Higher Secondary School since O1- 04-1972 From the details of servrce career of respondents No.4 to 6 submitted by the petitioner himself and policy of the respondents No.1 to 3, it cannot be disputed that respondents No 4 6 have fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the post of Principal of Higher Secondary School as th y were possessed of post graduate / degree and worked on the post on which they we¥e absorbed for a minimum period of seven years and had 10 years teaching experience in the same institution. The petitioner has neither pieaded'nor established from any other materiai'in his petition as to how respondents No.4 to 6 have not fuifilied the terms and conditions of the policy of absorption (Annexure R-1) dated 21-12- 1967. In this regard. vague pleadings have been made. ln'the rejoinder, the petitioner has also not stated as to how the respondents No.4 to o were not qualified, Without any specitic pleadings in the case disputing the eligibility criteria of the respondents No.4 to 6, it has been vaguely and evasively stated that they were not qualified. On the contrary. the petitioner has stated that documents relating to eligibility criteria, qualification and experience of respondents No.4 to 6 have not been filed. l am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner as in the absence of specific pleadings as to how the respondents No.4 to 6 were not qualified and on what count, it cannot be said that the respondents have failed to 6 establish that the absorption of the respondents No.4 to 6 were in accordance with the absorption policy letter dated 21-1 2-1 967 (Annexure R-1). (11) On the other hand, the detaits submitted by the petitioner himself in Annexure A-3 clearly revealed that even according to the petitioner, the respondents were not only working on the post of Principal at the time of their absorption but had completed the minimum period of service as required for the absorption on the said post. The petitioner has neither specifically pleaded nor in any manner established that respondents No.4 to 6 did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for absorption on any particular aspect. in view of the vague and evasive pleadings, contention of the petitioner, particularly in view of the averment with regard to details of respondents No.4 to 6, also stated by the respondents No.1 to I 3, l am unable to hold that there was any iltegality in absorption of the respondents No.4 to 6. (1 2) The other contention of the petitioner that as he was senior to respondents No. 4 to 6, therefore his name ought to be considered for promotion. also cannot be accepted because once the challenge to absorption of respondents No. 4 to 6 falls to the ground. respondents No. 4 to 6 are entitled to count their seniority from ' due date as a consequence of absorption on the post of Principal. The policy of absorption has not been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for promotion on the ground that he was senior to respondents’ No. 4 to 6 on the post of Principal deserves to be rejected. (1 3) lt has been lastly submitted that the petitioner having been possessed of PhD. degree should have been considered for promotion in preference to respondents No.4 to 6 also cannot be accepted as the respondents No.1 to 3 have clearly stated in their return that as per rules. the benefits admissible upon acquisition of PhD. degree in the shape of two additional increments have been granted to the petitioner. (14) l do not tind any reason to interfere with the order passed by the respondent authorities with regard to promotion, seniority and absorption of the irespondents No.4 to 6. The claim of the petitioner is therefore devoid of any substance and the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. ’ Sd/a ‘ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane i