Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2023 INSC 1061
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.786 of 2013
PRAFFUL SHUKLA AND OTHERS … Appellant(s)
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND OTHERS … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.787 OF 2013
J U D G M E N T
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of above-mentioned two
appeals as the common question of law and facts are involved. The
facts are being noticed from Civil Appeal No.786 of 2013.
1
2. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High
2 3
Court in Writ Appeal is under challenge before this Court. Vide
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2023.12.12
13:52:05 IST
Reason:
1
Judgment dated 19/20.07.2010.
2
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
3
Writ Appeal No. 353 of 2007.
1
4
aforesaid judgment, the order passed by the Single Judge of the High
Court was upheld.
3. The writ petitions were filed by the appellants praying for
quashing of the order dated 09.04.1999 vide which the staff in Adult
Education Department was merged in Education Department and
category-wise seniority was provided. The appellants were already
working in the Education Department.
4. The Single Bench of the High Court, while referring to
number of judgments of this Court, had opined that merger of cadres
is a policy decision which cannot generally be interfered with. The
argument raised by the writ petitioners before the High Court was that
there could a better policy, could not be a ground to quash the same.
The level of posts being merged was examined and it was opined that
these were at the same level. The Division Bench of the High Court had
also recorded a categoric finding to that effect. It was opined that the
post of Assistant Director in Adult Education Department carried the
same responsibilities as that of Assistant Director in the Education
Department. Though there used to be slight difference of the pay
scales, however that was also brought at par w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Even the
Single Bench had also noticed that the State Government had
4
Order dated 15.01.2007.
2
considered the entire gamut of facts including educational
qualifications, duties and responsibilities and pay scales before
directing merger of the two cadres.
5. It was further pointed out at the time of hearing by learned
counsel for the State that there were 17 writ petitioners before the High
Court challenging the merger. Their placement in the seniority of
Assistant Directors in the Education Department as on 01.01.2000 was
at Sr. Nos. 48, 215, 250, 271, 536, 537, 543, 551, 559, 577, 579, 580, 588,
589, 594 and 595. The said fact was not disputed at the time of hearing
by learned counsel for the appellants. It shows that the first person in
the seniority to challenge the merger was at Sr. No. 48. Thereafter, the
next person was after a gap of 167 persons and then came Sr. Nos. 250,
271 and 536 onwards. Meaning thereby, other officers in the cadre who
may be likely to be affected immediately with the merger, were not
aggrieved with the action of the State. Twenty-four years have gone by.
Number of promotions have taken place in between and many of the
officers have retired after attaining the age of superannuation or
otherwise are not in service for other reasons.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual matrix, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
3
7. The appeals are dismissed.
…..……………..J
(ABHAY S. OKA)
…………………..J
(RAJESH BINDAL)
New Delhi
December 12, 2023.
4