RAVI NORA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

                  [2015] 10 S.C.R. 781


          . RAVI NORA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA                       A
                            v.
                 STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
         (Civil Appeal Nos. 5853-5854 of 2008)
                 SEPTEMBER 4, 2015                            B
       [DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
     Service Law - Promotion - From the post of Steno-
typist, to the post of Stenographer - By order dated
22.01.2003- Thereafter promotion was cancelled- Writ C
petition challenging the cancellation, dismissed - Writ
appeal also dismissed - On appeal, held: As per the
Government letter NQ. C-3-710913149 dated 23.02.1989,
the criteria prescribed for promotion to the post of
                                                             0
Stenographer are five years experience as a Steno-typist
and passing of exam of Shorthand and Typing from State
Stenography Typing Council or from any recognized
institution - The appellant obtained requisite qualification
of passing the Council Examination in the year 2000 and E
was absorbed on the post of Steno-typist vide order dated
 12. 04. 200~ - Therefore he will become eligible for
promotion only in the year 2007 i.e. on completion of
period of five years after he was absorbed on the post of
Steno-typist - His promotion was rightly cancelled for not F
having fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion -
Appeals dismissed.
   CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
5853-5854 of 2008.                   ·
                                                              G
     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2006 and
20.05.2006 of the High CourtofM. P., Bench at Gwalior in W.
P. (S) No. 420 of 2002· and Writ Appeal No. 24 of 2006

    Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Ankita Gupta,   H
                           781
782         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A     Pratibha Jain for the Appellant.

         Mishra Saurabh, Ankit Kr. Lal, Vanshaja Shukla, B. S.
      Banthia for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 B
        R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is
   the judgment dated 20.05.2006 and 21.04.2006 passed by
   High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dismissing the
   Writ Appeal No.24 of 2006 and alsothe Writ Petition No.1420
 C of 2003, thereby upholding the canceliation of departmental
   promotion of the appellant observing that the appellant has
   not worked on the post of Steno-typist continuously for a
   period of five years before departmental promotion and thus
 D does not possess the eligibility criteria for promotion as a
   Stenographer.

          2. Appellant was initially appointed as a daily wager in
      the Forest Department before 1990 and his service was
      regularized on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) w.e.f.
 E    17.01.1990. In the year 1992, vide Order No.253 dated
      09.12.1992, the appellant was made in charge of Office
      Steno. Vide Order No.Stha./47 dated 12.04.2002, the
      Conservator of Forest, Shivpuri Circle directed the
 F    absorption of the appellant on the post of Steno-typist and
      special salary of Rs.125/- was sanctioned to him for doing
      the work of Steno-typist. Vide Order No./Stha/32 dated
      22.01.2003, the appellant was promoted to the post of
      Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs.4500-.125-7000. The
 G    Chief Conserva'tor of Forest passed the Order
      No.Prash.Araj/Stha/Fa-2/1169 dated 22.09.2003 cancelling
      the appointment of appellant on the post of Stenographer
      holding· that promotion was granted to the appellant by
      ignoring the condition of completing five years of service
 H    as Steno-typist.
 RAVINDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF M.P.                      783
             [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

     3. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his promotion, A
appellant filed a Writ Petition No.420 of 2003 challenging
the order of cancellation and reversion from the post of
Stenographer to the post of Steno-typist. The writ petition
was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court vide
order dated 21.04.2006 observing that the appellant was B
not holding the minimum eligibility criteria for the promotion
to the post of Stenographer and therefore his order of
promotion was rightly cancelled. Writ Appeal preferred by
the appellant also came to be dismissed. The appellant
assails the correctness of the dismissal of his writ petition C
and also the writ appeal in these appeals.

     4. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel
for the parties at considerable length and perused the
material on record.                                         D

     5. State Government's letter No.C-3-7/09/3/49 dated
23.02.1989 prescribed the criterion for promotion to the
post of Stenographer by departmental examination, as five
years experience as a Steno-typist and passing of exam of         E
Shorthand and Typing from Madhya Pradesh Stenography
Typing Council or from any recognized institution with a
speed of hundred words per minute. Admittedly, the
appellant passed the said shorthand and typing exam only
in the year 2000 and not prior to that. As noticed earlier, the   F
appellant was absorbed on the post of Steno-typist by an
order dated 12.04.2002. As per the eligibility criteria
prescribed by the Government in letter dated 23.02.1989,
the appellant will further become eligible for promotion on
the post of Stenographer only in the year 2007 that is on         G
completion of period of five years after he was absorbed
on the post of Steno-typist by the said order dated
12.04.2002. Thus the appellant cannot claim the benefit of
being posted as in charge 'Office Steno' vide order dated         H
784         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 10S.C.R.


A 09.12.1992. When the appellant was working as LDC,
  merely because he was placed in charge as Office Steno,
  that will not confer upon him any right to claim that he satisfied
  the.eligibility criteria from that date. Be it noted that the
  appellant obtained the requisite qualification by passing the
B Council Examination only in the year 2000 and he was
  absorbed on the post of Steno-typist vide order dated
  12.04.2002; when appellant has passed the Council exam
  of shorthand only in the year 2000, it is inconceivable as to
  how the appellant can claim his seniority as Steno-typist
C before ever he was qualified.

           6. Learned co1,msel for the appellant placed much
      reliance upon the recommendation of the Divisional Forest
      Officer dated 01.01.2003 in which DFO has stated that
D     appellant has performed all duties of Stenographer and
      recommended that he be given seniority of Steno-typist from
      the year 1998. By perusal of the said recommendation of
      Divisional Forest Officer dated 01.01.2003, it is seen that
      the appellant filed an application on 30.12.2002, seeking
 E    seniority on the post of Steno-typist and in response to that
      application, the said letter dated 01.01.2003 seems to have
      been sent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Shivpuri
      addressed to Conservator of Forest recommending that
 F    appellant has performed all duties of Steno-typist and he
      may be given seniority from the year 1998. Although such
      recommendation was made by Divisio~al Forest Officer to
      Conservator of Forest, there is no order from the
      Conservator of Forest to show that the recommendation was
 G    accepted.As noticed earlier, the appellant qualified himself
      in the Council exam only in the year 2000 and he was
      absorbed on the post of Steno-typist by an order dated
      12.04.2002, there is no question of granting seniority to the
      appellant on the post of Steno-typist from the year 1998.
 H    The appellant was eligible to be promoted to the post of
  RAVINDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF M.P.                  785
              [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

Stenographer only in the year 2007.                            A

     7. The High Court rightly held that the appellant did not
satisfy the eligibility criteria of having continuously worked
for a period of five years as Steno-typist before being
promoted as Stenographer. The impugned orders do not B
suffer from any infirmity warranting interference exercising
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy                       Appeals dismmised.   C