Dr. Jayshankar Prasad Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1047230
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJan-21-2013
AppellantDr. Jayshankar Prasad Gautam
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
1 writ petition no. 12340/2012 21.1.2013 shri s.d. mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.heard. aggrieved of fixation of seniority of adhyapak grade vide  gradation   list   dated   10.2.2011;   whereby,   the   petitioners   are  placed below respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7, present writ petition  has been filed. petitioners and respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 were initially  appointed as shiksha karmi grade ii on 3.8.1998, though they  joined   their   posts   on   different   dates.     that,   later   on   the  petitioners and respondents have been designated as adhyapak  w.e.f 1.4.2007.  that, in a consolidated gradation list of adhyapak  in jila panchayat rewa, district rewa as on 1.4.2011 respondent  nos.  5,   6   and   7   are   at   serial   no.  1,   2   and   3;   whereas,   the  petitioners are at sl. no. 32, 9 and 65 respectively.  this being the  cause   of   grievance,   it   is   urged   that   in   the   year   2009,   the  petitioners   were   placed   above   respondents   5,   6   and   7   on   the  basis of joining and the same has been changed in 2011 wherein  petitioners are shown junior to respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7.  it is  contended   that   the   seniority   has   to   be   fixed   on   the   basis   of  joining the post. no   rule   or   regulations   have   been   commended   at   to  substantiate   the   claim   that   the   seniority   should   be   fixed   in  accordance with date of joining.   whereas, it is observed from  gradation list of 2011 that the initial date of appointment and  confirment in the post of adhyapak being same, the seniority has  2 been assigned on the basis of date of birth older in age being  senior.  there appears to be no illegality, in absence of any rules  to   the   contrary,   of   assignment   of   seniority   where   the   date   of  appointment being same, on the basis of age. in view whereof, no interference is caused. petition fails and is hereby dismissed.  no costs. (sanjay yadav)                                                                            judge vt/­
Judgment:

1 Writ Petition No. 12340/2012 21.1.2013 Shri S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard.

Aggrieved of fixation of seniority of Adhyapak Grade vide  gradation   list   dated   10.2.2011;   whereby,   the   petitioners   are  placed below respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7, present writ petition  has been filed.

Petitioners and respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were initially  appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade II on 3.8.1998, though they  joined   their   posts   on   different   dates.

    That,   later   on   the  petitioners and respondents have been designated as Adhyapak  w.e.f 1.4.2007.  That, in a consolidated gradation list of Adhyapak  in Jila Panchayat Rewa, district Rewa as on 1.4.2011 respondent  Nos.  5,   6   and   7   are   at   serial   No.  1,   2   and   3;   whereas,   the  petitioners are at Sl. No. 32, 9 and 65 respectively.  This being the  cause   of   grievance,   it   is   urged   that   in   the   year   2009,   the  petitioners   were   placed   above   respondents   5,   6   and   7   on   the  basis of joining and the same has been changed in 2011 wherein  petitioners are shown junior to respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7.  It is  contended   that   the   seniority   has   to   be   fixed   on   the   basis   of  joining the post.

No   rule   or   regulations   have   been   commended   at   to  substantiate   the   claim   that   the   seniority   should   be   fixed   in  accordance with date of joining.   Whereas, it is observed from  gradation list of 2011 that the initial date of appointment and  confirment in the post of Adhyapak being same, the seniority has  2 been assigned on the basis of date of birth older in age being  senior.  There appears to be no illegality, in absence of any rules  to   the   contrary,   of   assignment   of   seniority   where   the   date   of  appointment being same, on the basis of age.

In view whereof, no interference is caused.

Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.  No costs.

(SANJAY YADAV)                                                                            JUDGE VT/­