RAVI NORA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 781, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 781 
. RAVI NORA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5853-5854 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 4, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Promotion - From the post of Steno-
typist, to the post of Stenographer - By order dated 
22.01.2003- Thereafter promotion was cancelled- Writ C 
petition challenging the cancellation, dismissed - Writ 
appeal also dismissed - On appeal, held: As per the 
Government letter NQ. C-3-710913149 dated 23.02.1989, 
the criteria prescribed for promotion to the post of 0 
Stenographer are five years experience as a Steno-typist 
and passing of exam of Shorthand and Typing from State 
Stenography Typing Council or from any recognized 
institution - The appellant obtained requisite qualification 
of passing the Council Examination in the year 2000 and E 
was absorbed on the post of Steno-typist vide order dated 
12. 04. 200~ -
Therefore he will become eligible for 
promotion only in the year 2007 i.e. on completion of 
period of five years after he was absorbed on the post of 
Steno-typist - His promotion was rightly cancelled for not F 
having fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion -
Appeals dismissed. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
5853-5854 of 2008. 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2006 and 
20.05.2006 of the High CourtofM. P., Bench at Gwalior in W. 
P. (S) No. 420 of 2002· and Writ Appeal No. 24 of 2006 
G 
Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, Abhinav Gupta,
Ankita Gupta, 
H 
781
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A Pratibha Jain for the Appellant. 
Mishra Saurabh, Ankit Kr. Lal, Vanshaja Shukla, B. S. 
Banthia for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is 
the judgment dated 20.05.2006 and 21.04.2006 passed by 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dismissing the 
Writ Appeal No.24 of 2006 and alsothe Writ Petition No.1420 
C of 2003, thereby upholding the canceliation of departmental 
promotion of the appellant observing that the appellant has 
not worked on the post of Steno-typist continuously for a 
period of five years before departmental promotion and thus 
D does not possess the eligibility criteria for promotion as a 
Stenographer. 
2. Appellant was initially appointed as a daily wager in 
the Forest Department before 1990 and his service was 
regularized on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) w.e.f. 
E 17.01.1990. In the year 1992, vide Order No.253 dated 
09.12.1992, the appellant was made in charge of Office 
Steno. Vide Order No.Stha./47 dated 12.04.2002, the 
Conservator of Forest, Shivpuri Circle directed the 
F absorption of the appellant on the post of Steno-typist and 
special salary of Rs.125/- was sanctioned to him for doing 
the work of Steno-typist. Vide Order No./Stha/32 dated 
22.01.2003, the appellant was promoted to the post of 
Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs.4500-.125-7000. The 
G Chief Conserva'tor of Forest passed the Order
No.Prash.Araj/Stha/Fa-2/1169 dated 22.09.2003 cancelling 
the appointment of appellant on the post of Stenographer 
holding· that promotion was granted to the appellant by 
ignoring the condition of completing five years of service 
H as Steno-typist.
RAVINDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF M.P. 
783 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
3. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his promotion, A 
appellant filed a Writ Petition No.420 of 2003 challenging 
the order of cancellation and reversion from the post of 
Stenographer to the post of Steno-typist. The writ petition 
was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court vide 
order dated 21.04.2006 observing that the appellant was B 
not holding the minimum eligibility criteria for the promotion 
to the post of Stenographer and therefore his order of 
promotion was rightly cancelled. Writ Appeal preferred by 
the appellant also came to be dismissed. The appellant 
assails the correctness of the dismissal of his writ petition C 
and also the writ appeal in these appeals. 
4. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel 
for the parties at considerable length and perused the 
material on record. 
D 
5. State Government's letter No.C-3-7/09/3/49 dated 
23.02.1989 prescribed the criterion for promotion to the 
post of Stenographer by departmental examination, as five 
years experience as a Steno-typist and passing of exam of E 
Shorthand and Typing from Madhya Pradesh Stenography 
Typing Council or from any recognized institution with a 
speed of hundred words per minute. Admittedly, the 
appellant passed the said shorthand and typing exam only 
in the year 2000 and not prior to that. As noticed earlier, the F 
appellant was absorbed on the post of Steno-typist by an 
order dated
12.04.2002. As per the eligibility criteria 
prescribed by the Government in letter dated 23.02.1989, 
the appellant will further become eligible for promotion on 
the post of Stenographer only in the year 2007 that is on G 
completion of period of five years after he was absorbed 
on the post of Steno-typist by the said order dated 
12.04.2002. Thus the appellant cannot claim the benefit of 
being posted as in charge 'Office Steno' vide order dated H
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10S.C.R. 
A 09.12.1992. When the appellant was working as LDC, 
merely because he was placed in charge as Office Steno, 
that will not confer upon him any right to claim that he satisfied 
the.eligibility criteria from that date. Be it noted that the 
appellant obtained the requisite qualification by passing the 
B Council Examination only in the year 2000 and he was 
absorbed on the post of Steno-typist vide order dated 
12.04.2002; when appellant has passed the Council exam 
of shorthand only in the year 2000, it is inconceivable as to 
how the appellant can claim his seniority as Steno-typist 
C before ever he was qualified. 
6. Learned co1,msel for the appellant placed much 
reliance upon the recommendation of the Divisional Forest 
Officer dated 01.01.2003 in which DFO has stated that 
D appellant has performed all duties of Stenographer and 
recommended that he be given seniority of Steno-typist from 
the year 1998. By perusal of the said recommendation of 
Divisional Forest Officer dated 01.01.2003, it is seen that 
the appellant filed an application on 30.12.2002, seeking 
E seniority on the post of Steno-typist and in response to that 
application, the said letter dated 01.01.2003 seems to have 
been sent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Shivpuri 
addressed to Conservator of Forest recommending that 
F appellant has performed all duties of Steno-typist and he 
may be given seniority from the year 1998. Although such
recommendation was made by Divisio~al Forest Officer to 
Conservator of Forest, there is no order from the 
Conservator of Forest to show that the recommendation was 
G accepted.As noticed earlier, the appellant qualified himself 
in the Council exam only in the year 2000 and he was 
absorbed on the post of Steno-typist by an order dated 
12.04.2002, there is no question of granting seniority to the 
appellant on the post of Steno-typist from the year 1998. 
H The appellant was eligible to be promoted to the post of

RAVINDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF M.P. 
785 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
Stenographer only in the year 2007. 
A 
7. The High Court rightly held that the appellant did not 
satisfy the eligibility criteria of having continuously worked 
for a period of five years as Steno-typist before being 
promoted as Stenographer. The impugned orders do not B 
suffer from any infirmity warranting interference exercising 
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 
Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals dismmised. C