Gabbu S/o Manohar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner is posted as Amin in the Water Resources Department, Sub Division Bada Malahara, Division Navagaon, Chhatarpur. He is aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2006 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 and also the inaction on the part of respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner to be posted on the post of Sub Engineer as per Government circular dated 24.12.1988. In the impugned order, it is specifically mentioned by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on the post of Sub Engineer as he is not eligible for the same because the seniority of Sub Engineers cadre is maintained at the Engineer-in-Chief level and not at the Chief Engineer level.

The petitioner has also relied upon the circular dated 11th November, 1997 (Annexure P/3) to submit that cut off date for appointment of the daily wage employees would be 13.12.1988. The petitioner has also vehemently argued that vide Government circular dated 17.10.2006, the Government has directed its departments to reserve 5% posts for the appointment of Diploma/ Degree holder Tracer/Assistant Draftsman, Draftsman and they can be posted as Sub Engineer. In this circular, the post of Amin is also mentioned which can be filled up through limited departmental examination. In the circumstances, the petitioner''s claim is that he is also entitled to be posted as Sub Engineer since he is holding the post of Amin.

In the return it is submitted that the petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to be promoted on the post of Sub Engineer as the said hierarchy is not available to the petitioner.

The main contention of the respondents is that the claim of the petitioner based on the circular dated 24.12.1988 and 11.11.1997 is baseless as these circulars are issued in respect of daily rated, work charge contingency employees and also the employees working on ad hoc basis hence the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of parity from these two circulars. Although in their return, the respondents have not denied the existence or applicability of the circular dated 17.10.2006 filed as Annexure P/26 which provides that 5% posts of Sub Engineers be reserved for the employees of various departments working as Tracer, Assistant Draftsman, Draftsman, Timekeeper, Amin etc. but it is stated by the respondents that the petitioner was sent on deputation to Panchayat Department for 3 years but even after completion of three years he has not come back to his parent department and unless the petitioner joins his parent department, the question of his promotion does not arise.

It is further submitted that in the channel of promotion, there is no such post of Amin from where the promotion is available directly to the post of Sub Engineer as the next promotion of Amin is as per channel of promotion provided in the schedule as Irrigation Inspector, therefore the claim of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Sub Engineer (who is Amin) is misconceived.

In the rejoinder/additional documents, the petitioner has again filed a list of employees of daily wagers having degree/diploma, who have been promoted on the post of Sub Engineer in the light of circular dated 24.12.1988 and 11.11.1997 and has again claimed that on the basis of the aforesaid circulars, he is entitled to be promoted on the post of Sub Engineer. The petitioner has admitted his deputation to the Panchayat Department and has submitted that a separate W.P. No.3584/2014 was filed by him in this regard and subsequently he has also filed Contempt Petition No.1599/2016 before this Court but no further details have been given in this regard. In the rejoinder the petitioner has mentioned that various other persons have been promoted on the post of Sub Engineer but the aforesaid documents reveal that the promotees are the daily wagers whereas the petitioner is permanent employee.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The two circulars dated 24.12.1988 and 11.11.1997 relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable in the petitioner''s case as the same are not applicable in case of regular employees. The documents filed by the petitioner along with the rejoinder only substantiate this reasoning that these circulars are in respect of the regular employees. The vague submission made by the petitioner in respect of his deputation, the filing of W.P. No.3584/2014 and the subsequent Contempt Petition No.1599/2016 are of no avail to the petitioner to claim the benefit of circular dated 17.10.2006 (Annexure P/26). The petitioner has also not referred to any instance during the past 6 years where on the basis of the aforesaid circular dated 17.10.2016 any person employed as Amin has been promoted to the post of Sub Engineer.

In the circumstances, the petitioner is not able to make out any case of discrimination or arbitrary action on the part of the respondents so as to make out any case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.