CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

L.R. Meena vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 6 January 2017 · Citation: (2017) 01 MP CK 0210

HON’BLE JUDGES
S K Gangele
CASE NUMBER
10276 of 2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 373 words
1.

Petitioners have prayed a direction in this petition that respondents be directed to consider the case of seniority of the petitioners for promotion from the post of Head Constable to the post of Platoon Commander.

2.

The dispute in this petition is regarding promotion from the post of Head Constable to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander. Earlier there was a policy in regard to promotion to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander from the post of Head Constable. As per aforesaid policy 90% vacancies had to be filled up by departmental examination on the basis of seniority cum merit and 10% vacancies had to be filled up from amongst the persons having out standing record under Regulation 56 (3) of Police Regulations. Vide GOP dated 7.6.2008 a new policy was introduced prescribing the promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Platoon Commander. According to new policy 60% posts have to be filled up by way of departmental examination of Grade-A and 30% posts have to be filled up by promotion from the persons who had completed 45 years of the age in Grade-B. All the petitioners attained the age of 45 years. Hence, they were placed in grade-B and it was resulted in suppression.

3.

Against new policy a writ petition No.11235/2009 was filed before this Court. It was disposed of vide order dated 5.10.2010 with certain directions.

4.

Against the aforesaid order SLP was filed before the Apex court and during pendency of SLP Department withdrawn the new policy and restored the old policy of year 1999.

5.

Petitioners pleaded that in the year 2014 an amended list of seniority was issued. However, seniority of the petitioners was not correctly determined and certain juniors of the petitioners were placed above them.

6.

From the facts of the case, it is clear that if any relief is granted to the petitioner then those persons may be adversely affected, those persons have not been made party in this petition. In my opinion, it is necessary for the petitioners to amend the writ petition and make them as party in this writ petition. Hence, this petition is released and petitioners are at liberty to make necessary amendment in the writ petition.