The recruitment to the promotions within the service are governed by the provisions of the M.P. Public Works Department Engineering Gazzetted Service Recruitment Rules 1969 hereinafter referred to Rules of 1969 .
The objection of limitation was also raised.
It was also companytended by the State that since they were promoted against the reserved category on the post of Executive Engineer by five years earlier than the general quota candidates, therefore, they would carry their seniority in the cadre of the Executive Engineer from their date of promotion.
23, 24 and 25 below the name of the respondent Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi herein .
It was also companytended before the Tribunal that on account of General Administration Department circulars dated 2.5.1975 and 17.5.1975 and as per the provisions of the M.P. Civil Service General Conditions of Service Rules, 1961 hereinafter referred to Rules of 1961 , they are entitled to be placed higher in the seniority list of Executive Engineer, though they might have been promoted later.
This petition was opposed before Tribunal by private respondents Scheduled Caste candidates , as well as by the State.
But, they were companysidered and appointed on the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1985, i.e. much after the promotions of the scheduled caste candidates including that of petitioner appellant before us.
Thereafter, the petitioner appellant was promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer in July, 1980 against the reserved post of the Executive Engineer, whereas, other private respondents number scheduled caste candidates were number companysidered for promotion on account of number availability of post in general category.
Therefore, admittedly, the respondents herein were senior to the petitioner appellant.
The case of the appellant herein was that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department after selection through Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission.
In this gradation list, the candidates who were appointed against the scheduled caste vacancies were shown above the other private respondents who were appointed against the general quota.
It was also companytended that subsequently, candidates from reserved category including petitioner appellant was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 7.4.1993, while general category persons as Superintending Engineer on 8.6.1995.
The objection of limitation was overruled by Tribunal and Tribunal allowed the application of those applicants and directed to companysider all the petitioners before Tribunal and other persons similarly selected against general quota, for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the date prior to the date on which private respondent number 2 petitioner appellant was promoted by calling a Review Departmental Promotion Committee and companysequently, all benefits to be given to them, if they were found suitable including for the post of the Chief Engineer and if it would become necessary to revert the private respondent number 2 petitioner appellant from the post of Chief Engineer for want of the post, such order shall be made within two months, however, numberarrears shall be paid.
Petitioner Appellant Scheduled Caste alongwith other Schedule Caste and other private respondents number SC were selected and appointed as Assistant Engineers on the basis of Civil Services Examination companyducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission.
After their appointment, they joined the duties on the post of Assistant Engineer on different dates in the year 1972.
The names of the petitioner appellant and other scheduled caste candidates were shown in the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission in lower position and their seniority was also drawn on the post of Assistant Engineer in the order mentioned in the select list.
Aggrieved against this order of Tribunal, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner appellant challenging the order of the Tribunal.
In the gradation list, issued for the post of Assistant Engineer as on 1.4.1982, the names of the petitioner appellant and other scheduled caste candidates duly selected appeared at S. Nos 187, 189 and 190, while the name of the respondent number 1 herein and others appeared between S.Nos 168 186.
The names of scheduled caste candidates appeared at S.Nos.
Persons who were promoted against the reserved category were placed low in the merit prepared by the Public Service Commission, but shown as senior, on account of their earlier promotion on the post of Executive Engineer against reserved category, and thereby having march over the persons of the general quota, who were promoted later than these candidates, i.e. scheduled castes scheduled tribes.
A provisional gradation list was issued and published on 18.6.1991 and objections were invited and that list was finalized on 8.10.1991.
The claim of the petitioner was denied before Tribunal and according to the return filed by the private respondents, it was claimed that since the private respondents, i.e., scheduled caste candidates were promoted on recommendation of DPC in different years, therefore, by virtue of their date of appointment, they became senior to the person from general quota and as such they are entitled to higher seniority.
The promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, as per these rules is hundred per cent from the post of Assistant Engineer.
Therefore, there is numbercase of supersession and as such, the seniority position of the Assistant Engineers, prepared on the basis of the merit list of the Public Service Commission should be followed and they be made senior to the persons, who were appointed against the scheduled caste quota.
This list was challenged before Tribunal and a prayer was made that they be placed above the scheduled caste candidates, because they were number superseded by the scheduled caste candidates but on account of number availability of post under general quota, they companyld number be promoted.
5634 of 1999, whereby Shiv Nath Prasad, appellant herein challenged the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal challenging the promotion of petitioner appellant before us and private respondents who belong to number scheduled caste.
K. MATHUR, J. These appeals are directed against the order dated 15th may 2003 passed by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
