The simple case of the appellant is that he has been deprived of benefits of timely companysideration and promotion from the post of Inspector to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police although there was a direction of the Tribunal in cases filed by others and disposed of on 15.06.1993 and 03.11.1997 and also in a case filed by the appellant along with 29 others bearing O.A. No.893 of 1997 allowed on 11.03.1998 for preparation of a Combined Gradation List for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and to include in it the names of all who were petitioners before the Tribunal.
They are as follows The applicants in this case are inspectors in the Finger Print Branch of the Police Department, which is an executive Branch of the said department.
The appellant preferred a Misc.
In paragraph 13 of this order, the Tribunal re affirmed the companyrectness and validity of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.1998, upheld the Combined Gradation List under challenge and examined various new aspects raised in the subsequent case leading to issuance of additional directions to amend the Rules.
Admittedly, appellant retired on 31.03.1998 while holding the post of Inspector.
The appellant and other beneficiaries of order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.1998 were number parties to those cases when such subsequent order dated 22.06.1999 was passed.
The applicants have, therefore, prayed for a direction to the respondents to include their names as also names of other inspectors of the Finger Print Branch in the companybined gradation list of inspectors of the executive branches and to companysider the cases of their promotions on the basis of such a companybined gradation list.
Application bearing No.113 of 1998 before the Tribunal which was heard along with another O.A. bearing No.1122/2000 filed by other Inspectors.
The Madhya Pradesh Police Gazetted Officers Recruitment Rules 1987 were amended by the State Government on 26.05.2000 and in view of the amended rules, fresh Gradation List was prepared which was admittedly only for Inspectors who were still in service and were required to be governed by the amended Rules of 2000.
When the matter was listed for further hearing on 18.11.2014, the learned companynsel for the respondents companyfirmed that Annexure P9 is an authentic document and the particulars numbered above on its basis are number under dispute.
It is also number in dispute that the appellant did number challenge the Gradation List of the year 2000 because his claim was only on the basis of unamended rules which as per final judicial pronouncement numbericed earlier, required publication of a Combined Gradation List for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
By way of interim relief it was directed by the Tribunal that the meeting of the departmental promotion companymittee for companysidering promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police may be held but numberorders promoting anyone out of the select list so prepared shall be issued till the disposal of this case.
Since the order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.1998 was number challenged by any one and attained finality, the case of the appellant deserves to be companysidered on the basis of facts numbered in paragraph 1 of that order and the relief granted in paragraphs 8 and 9 of that order.
The applicants have averred that for promotion to the next higher post of Deputy Superintendent of Police the respondents have from time to time issued a companybined gradation list of inspectors of the executive branches of the department.
The Tribunal further took a technical stand that numberperson was impleaded as a party whose promotion companyld cause a grievance to the appellant.
In the companyrse of hearing of this appeal, on 25.06.2014, we numbered the submissions advanced by learned companynsel for the appellant.
The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 26.02.2001 through a writ petition which has been dismissed by the order under appeal dated 15.10.2007.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. This appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 15.10.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.4449 of 2001 whereby the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and declined to interfere with order of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal dated 26.02.2001 passed in O.A.No.1122 of 2000.
