Gondia Pawar vs State of M.P. and Others

K.K. Trivedi, J.—This petition was original filed as Original Application in the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, which has been transmitted to this Court and is registered as writ petition after closure of the Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he made a complaint with respect to illegal appointment of respondent No. 4 before the competent authority and categorically contended that the respondent No. 4 was appointed initially as a Cleaner, was not having the requisite qualification to be appointed on the post of Steno, but was appointed as such at the behest of one Joint Director of Agriculture, who was posted at the said place, the proper enquiry was not conducted and a report was given saying that the complaint made by the persons like petitioner was not found correct. It is contended that looking to the facts as have been mentioned in the report itself, it was to be held that the respondent No. 4 was not eligible to be appointed on the post, but erroneous appointment was made in his favour. Since now he has been mentioned in the gradation seniority list as Stenographer, his name is required to be struck off. In view of these allegations, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:-

(i) To call for the records for the satisfaction of this Hon''ble Tribunal.

(ii) To command the respondents to delete the name of the respondent No. 4 in the gradation list in Annx. A-7 and to issue final gradation list accordingly.

(iii) To command the respondents No. 1 & 2 to hold a proper enquiry against the appointment of the respondent No. 4 and to take the action as per law.

(iv) Any other relief deemed fit under the circumstances of the case may kindly be issued, together with cost of this application.

2.The Tribunal has issued the notices to the respondents. The note sheet indicates that the registered notice was sent to the respondent No. 4, but there is no acknowledgment of service of notice on respondent No. 4. However, the return has been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 and they have contended that the petitioner herein was appointed in the year 1981, whereas, the respondent No. 4 was appointed in the year 1977 on the post of Stenographer. They themselves have said that the respondent No. 4 was confirmed with effect from 1.4.1980. However, it is admitted by them that the respondent No. 4 has acquired the qualification to be appointed on the post of Stenographer only on 5.8.1980. This being so, it is contended that even in the enquiry it was found that the respondent No. 4 was eligible and was rightly appointed, no action was taken against the respondent No. 4. Thus, it is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record, this Court fails to understand as to how the respondent No. 4 could be appointed on the post of Stenographer on 15.11.1977 and how could he be confirmed on the said post on 1.4.1980 even when it is admitted by the respondents in their return that the respondent No. 4 has acquired the qualification for appointment on the post of Stenographer on 5.8.1980. This itself speaks a volume about the conduct of enquiry by the respondents as has been reflected in report submitted by the Joint Director Agriculture, Tawa Ayakat Development Hoshangabad on 30.10.1989 contained in Annx. A/5.

Though the respondent No. 4 has not come forward to take any defence, but looking to the long pendency of the present petition before this Court, it would not be justified to direct immediate termination of service or removal of respondent No. 4 from the post. In view of this, it is directed that the Director of Agriculture, M.P. Bhopal, the respondent No. 2, will hold an enquiry himself in respect of appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post of Stenographer, specifically in view of the findings recorded herein above and in case it is found that the initial appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post of Stenographer was illegal, to cancel such illegal appointment and pass appropriate order in that respect. Let it be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.