RAVINDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P & ORS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 5853-5854 of 2008, Judgment Date: Sep 04, 2015
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5853-5854 OF 2008
RAVINDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA ...Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
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 also the Writ Petition No.420 of 2003, thereby
upholding the cancellation 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 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. 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 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 Chief Conservator 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 as Steno-typist.
3. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his promotion, 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 before ever he was qualified.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant placed much reliance upon the
recommendation of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 01.01.2003 in which
DFO has stated that 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 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 appellant has performed all duties of Steno-typist
and he may be given seniority from the year 1998. Although such
recommendation was made by Divisional Forest Officer to Conservator of
Forest, there is no order from the Conservator of Forest to show that the
recommendation was 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. The appellant was eligible to be promoted to the post of
Stenographer only in the year 2007.
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 suffer from any infirmity warranting interference exercising
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Appeals are
dismissed. No order as to costs.
.……………………J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
………………………J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
New Delhi;
September 4, 2015
-----------------------
4