AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has prayed for following relief in this petition:
"7.1 That, it is prayed that writ, order or direction be issued quashing the order of rejection of the claim of the petitioner for being appointed in class 4 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti as per the notification dated 23.10.12 vide annexure P/4. Hence, the orders contained in annexures P/7 and P/8 are liable to be quashed. 7.2 That, the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the notification vide annexure P/4 and the petitioner be appointed as class 4 employee in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jabalpur, with all the consequential benefits thereof. 3. That, any other relief which this Hon''ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded together with awarding the cost of these proceedings."
The whole case of the petitioner is based on document
dated 28.10.2012 (Annexure-P/4). The argument of Shri
Awasthy is that the petitioner is working as daily rated
Assistant Sub Inspector. He, as per Annexure-P/4,
submitted his option to switch over to a class IV post
which was erroneously rejected vide order dated
15.02.2017 (Annexure-P/7).
Shri Choubey, learned counsel for the employer
supported the rejection order dated 15.02.2017 by
contending that as per Annexure-P/4, the facility of
switch over to Class IV is available to those daily rated
employees working as ASI/Electrician-cum-Pump
Attendant who do not have minimum essential
qualification for the said post whereas as per Annexure-
R-4/1 dated 24.04.2017, it is clear that petitioner do
possess the minimum essential qualification of a Class III
post.
No other point point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner''s claim to switch
over to a class IV post could have been considered provided
he did not possess the minimum essential qualification for the
post of ASI. The document Annexure-R/4-1 dated 24.04.2017
shows that the petitioner possessed the said qualification. The
correctness of this finding of order dated 24.04.2017 is not
called in question in this petition by way of amendment. Accordingly, I am unable to hold that the petitioner can claim
the benefit of circular dated 28.10.2012 (Annexure-P/4). In
the result, no relief is due to the petitioner. Petition sans
substance and is hereby dismissed.