(Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.)
Warad Murti Mishra, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Khandwa __________________________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another ______________ Respondent(s).
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14036/2019, decided on July 11, 2019
(For Admission and I.R. and IA No. 91437/2019-Exemption From Filing C/C of the Impugned Judgment and IA No. 91440/2019-Exemption From Filing O.T.)
With
SLP(C) No. 13973/2019 (IV-A) (For Admission and I.R. and IA No. 90662/2019-Exemption From Filing C/C of the Impugned Judgment and IA No. 90663/2019-Exemption From Filing O.T. and IA No. 90660/2019-Permission to File Synopsis and List of Dates) SLP(C) No. 14134/2019 (IV-A) (For Admission and I.R. and IA No. 92339/2019-Exemption From Filing C/C of the Impugned Judgment and IA No. 92340/2019-Exemption From Filing O.T.) SLP(C) No. 14083/2019 (IV-A) (For Admission and I.R. and IA No. 91731/2019-Exemption From Filing C/C of the Impugned Judgment and IA No. 91733/2019-Exemption From Filing O.T.) Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14036/2019; WP No. 1712/2018; IA No. 91437/2019; IA No. 91440/2019; SLP(C) No. 13973/2019 (IV-A); IA No. 90662/2019; IA No. 90663/2019; IA No. 90660/2019; SLP(C) No. 14134/2019 (IV-A); IA No. 92339/2019; IA No. 92340/2019; SLP(C) No. 14083/2019 (IV-A); IA No. 91731/2019; and IA No. 91733/2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel invited our attention to the questions framed by the Division Bench in para 21 of its order1 and to the following observations in paragraphs 22 and 23 :—
“22. In view of the foregoing observations, we deem it appropriate to refer the judgment2 of the Full Bench to the Larger Bench to answer the aforesaid issues.
23. Registrar (Judicial) is requested to place the matter before Hon’ble Chief Justice to do the needful and to take appropriate steps in this regard in view of the foregoing observations.”
2. According to Mr. Shrivastava, the controversy in question had reached this Court in 2009 when the special leave petitions3 and the review petitions were dismissed affirming the view taken by the Division Bench in Suresh Kumar v. State of M.P.4 and other connected matters. Thereafter, on a reference made by the Division Bench, the Full Bench2 of the High Court had an occasion to consider the matter. The judgment of the Full Bench rendered in State of M.P. v. Prakash Jangre2 and connected matters was challenged before this Court in SLP (C) No. 20288 of 2012 and other connected matters. The special leave petitions were dismissed by this Court on 1-9-20175 and review petitions arising therefrom were also dismissed by this Court. The submission of Mr. Shrivastava is that the matters having been settled, the Division Bench ought not to have referred1 the matter for further consideration by a larger Bench.
3. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the State relied upon the decisions of this Court reported in M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P.6; State of M.P. v. Ramkinkar Gupta7; and Om Prakash Shrivastava v. State of M.P.8 to submit that the passing of the departmental examination would be a relevant criteria to determine the seniority and if in the intervening period a subsequent batch had been appointed, the person from the previous batch would not retain his seniority as against the subsequent batch. In his submission, the Division Bench was, therefore, justified in making the reference to a larger Bench.
4. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the private respondents on caveat, invited our attention to the interplay between Rule 8(7) and Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. According to the learned counsel, by virtue of Rule 8(7), the status of such a Government servant would be “temporary Government servant” and he would cease to be part of the regular service and, therefore, Rule 12 would be completely inapplicable.
5. The rival submissions need to be gone into. We, therefore, issue notice returnable on 20.08.2019. The respondents who are appearing on caveat need not be served. Rest of the respondents be served immediately.
6. Dasti in addition.
7. The respondents are at liberty to file their reply within three weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
8. List the matter on 20.08.2019.
9. In the meantime, there shall be stay of operation of paragraph nos. 22 and 23 of the order presently under appeal.
———
1 Warad Murti Mishra v. State of M.P., WP No. 1712 of 2018, order dated 30-5-2019 (MP)
2 State of M.P. v. Prakash Jangre, 2012 SCC OnLine MP 11024 : (2012) 133 FLR 923
3 State of M.P. v. Sandeep Kumar Mawkin, SLP (C) CC No. 13888 of 2010, order dated 13-9-2010 (SC)
4 2009 SCC OnLine MP 801 : 2010 Lab IC 1455
5 State of M.P. v. Masood Akhtar, SLP (C) No. 20288 of 2012, order dated 1-9-2017 (SC)
6 (1996) 11 SCC 173 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 376
7 (2000) 10 SCC 77 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 388
8 (2005) 11 SCC 488 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 107
