V.D.Sharma vs Principal Secretary State Of M.P. And 3 Ors.

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30330
1 WP-1231-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1231 of 2012
CNR No.: MPHC020033372012
V.D.SHARMA
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Nagar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Swati Ukhale - GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:-

(a) That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the
Respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for
promotion on the post of Treatment Organizer from the
date on which his respondent no. 4 were promoted (on
16-08-1996) with all consequential benefits.
(b) The petition may be allowed with cost.
(c) Any such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit may kindly be awarded in the interest of
justice.
02. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on the
post of Assistant Grade-III on 28.06.1984. He continuously discharged work
in the department at District T.B. Center, Dist. Shajapur. The petitioner has
filed gradation list of Lower Division Clerk/Computer Room Clerk/Steno-
Typist showing the position of the said cadre as on 01.01.2011. In the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 28-10-2026
19:32:32

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30330
2 WP-1231-2012
gradation list, the name of the petitioner is placed at serial No. 1.

03. The respondents held a meeting of the Departmental Promotion
Committee for promotion on the post of Treatment Organizer. In the year of
1996, the respondent No. 4 was promoted on the post of Treatment
Organizer; while doing so, the name of the petitioner was not considered.
According to the petitioner, he was also entitled for promotion on the post of
Treatment Organizer and the respondent No. 4 was junior to him. Thus his
promotion ignoring the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable and the
petitioner also deserves to be given the benefit of promotion from the date on
which the respondent No. 4 was promoted. The petitioner submitted a
representation in this behalf (Annexure P/3), however, the respondents did
not consider the same. As such, the petitioner has filed the present petition
claiming promotion on the post of Treating Organizer from the date on
which the respondent No. 4 was promoted i.e. 16.08.1996 with all
consequential benefits.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
working on the post of Treatment Organizer since a very long period and the
officers of the respondent department from time to recommended for
promotion of the petitioner on the said post. However, the respondents
without considering the claim of the petitioner has promoted the respondent
No. 4. He also points out that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of
Narender Chadha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , reported in (1986) 1
S.C.R. 211, has held that where a person has been working on a post for long
period, the State should consider conferring the benefits attached to the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 28-10-2026
19:32:32

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30330
3 WP-1231-2012
post by relaxing the relevant recruitment rules. Thus the learned counsel

submits that the action of the respondents in ignoring the claim of the
petitioner for his promotion is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
05. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while
contesting the case on merits, submits that the petitioner does not, in fact,
belong to the feeder cadre of Treatment Organizer, thus he could not have
been promoted on the said post. The substantive post of the petitioner is
Assistant Grade-III and thus his promotional post is Assistant Grade-II.
Learned Government Advocate refers to the Schedule - IV (b) of M.P.
Health and Family Welfare (Directorate of Health Services) Class-III
Ministerial Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 and points out that as per Entry
No. 5, a Lower Division Clerk and Assistants are to be promoted on the post
of Upper Division Clerk or on the post of Computer. The learned counsel
submits that in fact the petitioner was promoted on the post of Upper
Division Clerk, however, the petitioner did not join on the said post and
insisted for promotion on the post of Treatment Organizer.
0 6 . Learned counsel also refers to Schedule - IV of the Madhya
Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial
(Related to the Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment
Rules, 1989 and submits that as per Entry No. 24 of Schedule - 4, T.B.
Health Visitor Grade-2 is to be promoted either on the post of T.B. Health
Visitors Grade - I or on the post of Treatment Organiser. Thus, he submits
that the channel of promotion for the two posts is completely different. The
petitioner belongs to ministerial cadre whereas the post of Treatment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 28-10-2026
19:32:32

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30330
4 WP-1231-2012
Organizer belongs to non-ministerial cadre, thus he could not have been

promoted on the said post.
07. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
file.
08. In the present case, it is not under dispute that the substantive post
of the petitioner is Assistant Grade-III/Lower Division Clerk. It can also not
be disputed that the said post is feeder cadre for promotion on the post of
Upper Division Clerk. A perusal of the Schedule - IV (b) of Madhya Pradesh
Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial (Related to
the Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules,
1989 would show that in Entry No. 5 the channel of promotion of the Lower
Division Clerk is provided which provides that a Lower Division Clerk can
be promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk or Steward or Cashier. An
Entry No. 6 further provides that a Lower Division Clerk/Computer-cum-
Clerk can be promoted to the post of Computer. It is thus clear that the
channel of promotion on the post of Lower Division Clerk is completely
different than that of Treatment Organizer. A perusal of Entry No. 24 of the
Non-Ministerial Recruitment Rules would show that a T.B. Health Visitor
can be promoted to the post of Treatment Organizer which certainly is not
the post of the petitioner.
09. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the
judgment of Narender Chadha (supra), however, the facts of that case were
different. In the present case in para-4 of the return, the State has clearly
stated that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 28-10-2026
19:32:32

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30330
5 WP-1231-2012
however he did not join on the said post. As such, on the one hand, the

petitioner has declined promotion to the post in his own channel of
promotion, while, on the other hand, he has insisted upon promotion to a
post belonging to an entirely different cadre to which he does not belong. In
view of the aforesaid, the reliance placed by learned counsel on the decision
in Narender Chadha (supra) is misplaced and untenable.
10. Considering the facts of the present case, no case for indulgence is
made out. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 28-10-2026
19:32:32