Dayashankar Mahobia Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2. Commissioner, Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

07.08.2024

¶17

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶18

“ 10.I That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the relevant records pertaining to the instant matter.

¶19

10.II That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondent no. 1 and direct the respondent no. 1 to promote the petitioner to the post of Area Organizer.

¶20

10.III Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

¶21

2

¶22

2. Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on 22.09.1982 the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh invited applications from interested Upper Division Teachers (UDT) for appointment to the post of Programme Inspectors for the mid-day meal programme. She further submitted that the petitioner was appointed to the post of UDT on 07.11.1988. She also submitted that the petitioner moved an application before the State authority for working on the post of Programme Inspector on 13.01.1997 and vide order dated 15.01.1997, he was appointed as Programme Inspector till further orders. The applications were moved for inclusion of names of Programme Inspectors and preparation of the seniority list of Programme Inspectors and details were forwarded by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2. On 18.09.2001 the petitioner and one Yogendra Nath Tiwari who was also working on the post of Programme Inspector made representations before respondent No. 3 to include their names in the gradation list of Programme Inspector as the name of the petitioner was deleted from the gradation list of Programme Inspector, though he was working on the said post since 1997. She contended that the policy decision was taken by the State on 24.06.2008, whereby 15 posts of Programme Inspectors were abolished and 12 new posts of Area Organizers were created and after the creation, there were a total of 34 posts of Area Organizers. She further contended that the petitioner was posted on the post of Area Organizer and a specific order was issued in this regard by respondent No. 1 on 29.12.2010 and he was being paid salary attached to the post of Area Organizer. She also contended that W.P.(S) No. 5004/2008 was filed by the petitioner claiming therein absorption on the post of Programme Inspector/Circle Organizer/Area Coordinator based on Circular dated 22.091982 and he

¶23

3

¶24

was permitted to make a representation before the respondent authorities and in turn, the respondent authorities were directed to take appropriate decision on such representation. The representation so made by the petitioner was rejected on 25.10.2011 by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner failed to show interest in the post of Programme Inspector and that he would not suffer any financial loss and further the posts of Programme Inspector have already been abolished, against that order, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶25

3. Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi further argued that the petitioner as well as Yogendra Nath Tiwari were holding the post of Programme Inspector. She also argued that the claim of the petitioner was turned down vide order dated 25.10.2011 by respondent No. 1, whereas the representation made by Yogendra Nath Tiwari was allowed by respondent No. 1 on 15.01.2019 and a supernumerary post was created. She stated that in WP No. 854/2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2018, there was no such direction to create any post to accommodate Yogendra Nath Tiwari. She further stated that the petitioner as well as Yogendra Nath Tiwari were holding the post of Programme Inspector under the mid-day meal scheme. She also stated that though as per the order impugned dated 25.10.2011, the posts of Programme Inspectors were abolished way back in the year 2010 or 2011, even though the claim of Yogendra Nath Tiwari was considered, therefore, the order dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure P/1) is discriminatory, arbitrary, malafide and is liable to be quashed. She submitted that the authority concerned may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for posting him to the post of Programme Inspector/Area Organizer.

¶26

4. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, the learned Government

¶27

4

¶28

Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. Mr. Satish Gupta submitted that the claim of the petitioner for posting on the post of Programme Inspector was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 25.10.2011. He further submitted that the claim of Mr. Yogendra Nath Tiwari was considered pursuant to the order passed in WP No. 854/2006 and a supernumerary post was created. He also submitted that the substantive post of the petitioner is a UDT and he has no right to claim promotion or posting on the post of Programme Inspector. He stated that in the rules, there is no provision for promotion from the post of UDT to Programme Inspector. He also stated that the present petition is not maintainable as in earlier WPS No. 5004/2008, no liberty was granted to revive the prayer.

¶29

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record.

¶30

6. Dealing with the objection raised by Mr. Satish Gupta, the learned Government Advocate that the present petition is not maintainable as no liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner while disposing of WPS No. 5004/2008, from a perusal of the order, it appears that the petitioner was permitted to make a representation before the respondent authorities and the authority concerned was directed to consider the representation and pass the appropriate order(s). The representation so made by the petitioner was rejected by the authority which gave a new cause of action to the petitioner, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Satish Gupta appears to be misconceived.

¶31

7. The petitioner as well as Yogendra Nath Tiwari, though he has not been arrayed as the respondent in the present petition, was holding the post of Programme Inspector. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner filed a petition seeking direction to the respondents to absorb

¶32

5

¶33

his services in the post of Programme Inspector and liberty was granted to the petitioner to make a representation. The representation was rejected vide order dated 25.10.2011. The petitioner filed this petition and an interim order was granted in his favour on 23.11.2011 which is still in force.

¶34

8. The claims of the petitioner and Yogendra Nath Tiwari are almost similar. On the same set of facts, the claim of the petitioner was turned down vide order dated 25.10.2011, wherein it is observed that the post of Programme Inspector has already been abolished, but in the year 2019, respondent No. 1 created a supernumerary post for Yogendra Nath Tiwari and he was posted on the post of Programme Inspector. WP No. 854/2006 was disposed of granting liberty to Yogendra Nath Tiwari to make a representation before the authority and the authority concerned was directed to take an appropriate decision on such representation and there was no direction to the State authorities to create a supernumerary post to accommodate Yogendra Nath Tiwari.

¶35

9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the order Annexure P/1 dated 25.10.2011 appears to be discriminatory, therefore, the same is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for absorption afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till the decision is taken by the State, the interim order shall remain in force.

¶36

10. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), this petition is disposed of . No costs.

¶37

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

vatti

Dayashankar Mahobia v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayashankar Mahobia v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chandra Borkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Vijay Kumar Pathak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

K.l. Sahu and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sunil Singh Baghel And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Shiv Pratap Singh And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari Vs Guru Ghasi Das University and Anr.