Sujoy Paul, J. - (1.)IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 16.5.2011 (Annexure P -1) with further prayer that he be given consequential monetary benefits. By amending the petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.2.2011 (Annexure P -11). It is further prayed that he be directed to be considered for promotion on the post of Deputy Registrar w.e.f. 1995 with seniority at appropriate place. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel fairly submits that the petitioner is not pressing the relief in as much as the financial consequential benefits are prayed for in the relief clause.
(2.)THIS matter has a chequered history. The parties have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the court. The petitioner was selected by the selection conducted by the PSC for the post of Assistant Registrar in the Co -operative department of Govt. of M.P. The petitioner was not relieved by the Forrest department wherein he was serving at that point of time. Since petitioner was not relieved, he filed O.A. No. 918/1988 before the then M.P. Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and was re -registered as W.P. No. 1564/05. This Court by order dated 9.8.2007 (Annexure P -3) allowed the writ petition and passed directions to treat the petitioner as Assistant Registrar from the date of his appointment. By taking this Court to para 12 and 13 of the order passed in W.P. 1564/05, it is contended by learned senior counsel that in view of this order, at best, petitioner can be deprived from arrears of salary for the period he was deprived to join the Cooperative Department. It is further submitted that the order of writ court got stamp of approval from the Division Bench in W.A. No. 79/09. The Apex Court also dismissed the S.L.P. No. 3252/10 (Annexure P -5) filed by the Govt.
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner was all along willing to join the cooperative department but was deprived to do so because of reasons solely attributable to the respondents. This Court in explicit terms made it clear that petitioner must be treated as Assistant Registrar for all purposes minus the consequential monetary benefits. This goes without saying that petitioner must be treated on the rolls of the Co -operative department w.e.f. 1.1.1988. He submits that petitioner has already passed the examination while working in Forest department and, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to pass the order dated 3.2.2011 (Annexure P -11). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's seniority has to be counted from the date of his initial appointment. He is required to be given proper placement as per rules.

(3.)ATTACKING on the second aspect regarding non -consideration for promotion, it is urged that the DPC proceeding (Annexure R -1) makes it clear that petitioner is deprived from consideration because he was not in the feeder post in the cooperative department for five years. Secondly, his ACRs. for last five years were not written by the cooperative department and it was written by the Forest department. He submits that the reasons assigned by the DPC runs contrary to the order passed by this Court and affirmed by Supreme Court.