SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGARD being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in this batch of writ petitions they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 5056/2005 (S) are exposited herein.

(2.) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition claiming proper fixation of seniority. THE contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was selected in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the M.P. Public Service Commission in the year 1992 and was placed at Serial No. 14 of the select list/merit list of Deputy Collector of the year 1994 and an appointment order was also issued on 4th June, 1994. THE petitioner has further stated that in the merit list the petitioner was placed between Vivek Singh and Anil Kumar Khare and he has submitted his joining on 1-7-1994. THE petitioner has further stated that he was posted on probation, however, was not able to clear the departmental examination during probational period and his period of probation was extended by an order dated 6-11-1996. THE petitioner has further stated that he has finally qualified the examination on 22-7-1997 and he has been declared as confirmed Deputy Collector by an order dated 4th June, 1999, w.e.f. 23-7-1997. THE petitioner has further stated that a gradation list was issued of the year 2002 and the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 414 whereas his name should have been placed at Serial No. 335-A. THE petitioner's grievance is that about 88 Deputy Collectors have been placed over and above him in the gradation list. THE petitioner has placed reliance over the Rule 12 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Condition of Services) Rules, 1961 and his contention is that the order of merit fixation by PSC cannot be disturbed and he has to be placed between the Vivek Singh and Anil Kumar Khare as he was placed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission while issuing a merit list. THE petitioner has enclosed a gradation list of the year 2005 and his placement is reflected at Serial No. 326, the petitioner's contention is that his batch mates are placed at Serial Nos. 244 to 252 and, therefore, his placement at Serial No. 326 is bad in law. THE petitioner has further stated that various representations were submitted by him however, the respondents have not granted him a proper seniority and therefore, he is left with no other choice except to approach this Court by filing this present writ petition.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.