- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Markandey Maurya, respondent in this special appeal, had filed Writ Petition No. 34209 of 2005, challenging the validity and correctness of the order order dated 20.11.1998 promoting him on the post of Munshi and order dated 15.4.2005 cancelling his promotion on the post of Head Munshi and promoting the present appellant Ram Chandra Ram in his place.
(2.) The case of Markandey Maurya in the writ petition was that there is no channel of promotion from the post of Meth to the post of Munshi, therefore, the order dated 20.11.1998 promoting appellant Ram Chandra Ram, who was not a confirmed employee, was illegal as he was not eligible for promotion on the post of Munshi.
(3.) After considering Rules 5, 12 and 13 of the Irrigation Department Munshis Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), learned Single Judge allowed the aforesaid writ petition vide judgment and order dated 12.11.2007 quashing the impugned orders. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 12.11.2007, reads thus : Now let me examine the validity of the promotion of the petitioner as Head Munshi. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the promotion of the petitioner as head Munshi has rightly been cancelled as he was not qualified for such a promotion as under Rule 12 of the Rules, 1954 he has not put in at least 10 years continuous service on the post of Munshi. I am not at all impressed by the above submission. A plain reading of Rule 12 and 13 indicates that for the promotion on the post of Munshi the Patrol or Tube-well Operator as the case may be apart from being in the required age group should have at least 5 years of continuous service and should be willing to work as Munshi. As far as for the appointment on the post of head Munshi by promotion, the necessary eligibility conditions are that the candidates should be confirmed Munshi with at least "10 years continuous service". The said rule no where stipulates in specific terms that 10 years of continuous service should be on the post of Munshi. Therefore, in the absence of such specification "10 years of continuous service" refers to service in the department whether it happens to be on the post of Munshi or any other inferior post. The petitioner is working in the department since 16.10.1979 and as such on the date of his promotion as head Munshi he had put in over 10 years service in the department. Since the petitioner has admittedly, put in over 10 years service and was working as a confirmed Munshi on the date of his promotion as head Munshi, it cannot be said that he was not qualified or eligible to be promoted. No other illegality in the promotion of the petitioner as head Munshi has been pointed out which could have instigated the cancellation of the promotion of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.4.2005 passed by the Superintending Engineer cancelling the promotion granted in favour of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 20.11.1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), 15.4.2005 (Annexure-9 writ petition) promoting the respondent No. 5 as Munshi and as head Munshi respectively and the order dated 15.4.2005 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) cancelling the promotion of the petitioner as head Munshi are quashed.;