RAVINDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs STATE OF M.P
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,R. BANUMATHI
Case number: C.A. No.-005853-005854 / 2008
Diary number: 20951 / 2006
Advocates: PRATIBHA JAIN Vs
B. S. BANTHIA
Page 1
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 1
Page 2
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
2
Page 3
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
3
Page 4
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