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