Mahavir Prasad Jain vs State of M.P. and Others

K.K. Trivedi, J.—This petition was originally filed as Original Application in the M.P. Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal and has been transmitted to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner in brief is that he was an excellent sports person. There was a scheme made by the State Government in General Administration Department, wherein it was provided that those excellent sports person, who have represented the State in the National Games or have been declared as excellent sports person by the M.P. Sport Board, were to be appointed on the post of Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School. According to the said scheme the case of the petitioner was considered, recommendation was made for appointment of petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the School Education Department and a memo was sent for his appointment as such on 20.08.1990. However, vide order dated 21.02.1991, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher under the said scheme. The representation was made by the petitioner in this respect, but the same was not being considered, on the other hand when the matter was referred to the respondents by the Director of Public Instructions as back as on 01.03.1995, though similarly situated person was given the benefit, but such a claim of the petitioner was not considered, therefore, the petition was required to be filed.

The respondents on receipt of the notices of the Original Application have filed the return and have contended that the claim made by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation as is prescribed u/s 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Original Application was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, it was admitted that the case of the petitioner was recommended for grant of appointment on the post of Lecturer, but the order of appointment was issued in respect of petitioner on 21.02.1991, appointing him as a Upper Division Teacher in a School. The petitioner accepted the said offer of appointment without any demur. After such a long time the petitioner cannot agitate the matter before the Tribunal and as such the claim made by the petitioner was to be rejected. Thus it is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed on this count.

To meet out the allegations made in the return, a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner and it is contended that after receipt of the order of appointment he made the representation on 12.12.1994. The same was sent to the higher authorities with the information that all such excellent sports persons were given the appointment on the post of Lecturer. The recommendations made by the Minister concerned were also referred. The matter remained in consideration before the Minister for a long time. The records were called, but since thereafter nothing was done and as the last correspondence was done on 16.04.1998, the petitioner has rightly approached the Tribunal within time. Even if, there is some delay, the same was liable to be condoned. Nothing has been filed by the respondents hence after indicating that such a stand taken by the petitioner in the rejoinder is incorrect.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Undisputedly, when the recommendation was made for the petitioner, the General Administration Department has categorically directed that in terms of the circulars dated 23.07.1987, 24.11.1988, 24.06.1989 and 06.04.1989, the excellent sport persons were to be appointed on the post of Lecturer. The recommendation was specifically made with respect to the petitioner for his appointment as a Lecturer. As to how the petitioner was not to be appointed as a Lecturer or that he was required to be appointed as a Upper Division Teacher is not explained by the respondents. From the document Annexure A-2 placed on record, it is clear that on receipt of such recommendation form the G.A.D. the Commissioner of Public Instructions sought guidance from the Secretary of the School Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh on 16.10.1990 as to whether the petitioner was to be appointed as a Lecturer or not. With reference to this nothing has been placed on record as to whether any approval was granted by the Secretary of the department for appointment of petitioner as Upper Division Teacher or not. On the other hand, the order of appointment was issued in respect of the petitioner on 21.02.1991 appointing him as Upper Division Teacher. This action was taken with reference to memo dated 20.08.1990 of the G.A.D.

It is further clear from the document available on record along with the rejoinder that some representation was made by the petitioner which was again referred to the Secretary of the department on 01.03.1995. It was pointed out in this memo that one Ku. Renuka Chouhan, who was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1987 as excellent sports person, was appointed on the post of Lecturer vide order dated 26.11.1994, treating the same as a special case. Similar is the situation mentioned in respect of one Ku. Sunaina Sharma and Ku. Archana Dubey. One Ku. Sunita Choubey was also appointed as such on the post of Lecturer vide order dated 05.12.1994 and this was done only because of the recommendation of the G.A.D. If the appointment on the post of Lecturer was to be done with the approval of the State Government as the post of Lecturer was gazetted post, it was necessary on the part of the Secretary of the respondent No. 1 to decide such a claim. Ultimately, when nothing was done, the Original Application was required to be filed. In view of this, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not diligent in making the claim before the Court or that his claim was barred by limitation.

In the return of the respondents this fact is admitted that the recommendation made by the G.A.D. was for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer. If the similar recommendations made in respect of similarly situated persons were accepted, in case of certain sports person change of order of appointment on the post of Lecturer was issued, why similar treatment was not given to the petitioner, is not explained. If this is the situation, the policy is very much in vogue, it is nothing but the hostile discrimination of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a decision given by this Court in the case of Damodar Prasad Arya Vs. State of M.P. and others [W.P. No. 9593/2008 (s)] decided on 21.08.2012 by the Indore Bench of this Court, wherein it has been held that the special benefit granted to the excellent sports person cannot be said to be unjustified or improper. In fact it is the special privilege made available to those, who have obtained excellence in sports and have earned name for the State.

This being so, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to look into the claim of the petitioner for his upgradation on the post of Lecturer. In case it is found that the petitioner should have been appointed on the post of Lecturer as is recommended by G.A.D. way back in the year 1990, such appointment be made in respect of the petitioner. However such appointment would be prospective and not retrospective in all sense. This exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. The writ petition is finally disposed of with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs.