- (1.) Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition (C) No.28755 of 2009.
(2.) The present appeals, one preferred by the aggrieved officer, H.S. Sidhu and the other by the State, call in question the legal vulnerability of the judgment and order dated 24.03.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the high Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in Writ Appeal Nos. 370, 371, 411 and 442 of 2008 whereby it has concurred with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.03.2008 in Writ Petition No.23798 of 2003 and W.P.S. No.1119 of 2005.
(3.) It is seemly to state that the grievance is common in all the appeals. The facts, on a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench, appear to be complex but they are actually not so. Complexity has been created with ingenious artificiality. Reference to certain dates, the factual position admitted at the Bar, and the relevant rules would suffice the narration. It is not in dispute that the appellant, H.S. Sidhu, and the 1st respondent, Devendra Bapna, were initially appointed as Assistant Directors as direct recruits through the Public Service Commission and their service conditions are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Fisheries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987 (for brevity, 'the 1987 Rules') with certain incorporation from the Madhya Pradesh Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (For short, 'the 1961 Rules'). There is no cavil over the fact that they were promoted to the post of Deputy Directors and in that cadre Devendra Bopana was treated as senior to the appellant H.S. Sidhu.;