Rohit Arya, J.
1. On 13.12.2022 Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General had placed on Board the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 12.12.2022 in SLP No. 22793/2022 for deferment of hearing. Maintaining judicial discipline, this Court deferred the hearing for 09.01.2023 as the SLP No. 22793/2022 was posted for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.01.2023. On 09.01.2023, at the request of Shri Mody the case was posted for 01.02.2023. The hearing was again deferred on 1.2.2023 with the order for listing the case in the next week. Accordingly, the case is posted today for consideration.
2. Before adverting to contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is expedient to reiterate the factual background leading to filing of the instant contempt petition.
3. Petitioners are serving as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and became due for promotion as Deputy Director, Veterinary as far back as on 2008 onwards. Due to inaction on the part of the State Government in the matter of convening a DPC, petitioners had preferred Writ Petition No. 14029/2020 with the prayer seeking writ of mandamus commanding respondents/State to convene DPC and for considering their candidature for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Veterinary against unreserved posts. It may also be stated that due to considerable delay in convening DPC many incumbents eligible for said promotion had reached the age of superannuation and denied the promotional benefits otherwise due to them. Even during pendency of writ petition two petitioners namely Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma-petitioner No. 1 and Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta-petitioner No. 11 reached the age of superannuation without adjudication of their claim for promotion.
4. Before the writ court the respondent/State Government under the pretext of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 13954/2016 dated 12.05.2016 took the stand that State Government is unable to convene the DPC. The said order was construed as if the Hon'ble Apex Court has restrained the State Government to hold DPC for promotions in departments under the Governance and Control of State Government. The writ court relying upon the order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 17.05.2018 in SLP No. 30621/2011 (Jarnail Singh and ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and ors.), arising out of the order dated 15.07.2011 passed in C.W.P. No. 13218/2009 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court, directed the State Government to convene DPC and implement the recommendation for promotion to unreserved post. The State Government preferred Writ Appeal No. 790/2022. The same has been dismissed on 20.09.2022. As the State Government maintained inertia and since hell-bent upon not to convene the DPC as ordered within the time stipulated in the order, petitioners were constrained to file contempt petition even after gap of two months. During pendency of contempt petition, this Court has passed detailed orders on 28.11.2022 and 05.12.2022 but the government remained indifferent except filing of SLP No. 22793/2022, no sooner this Court ordered for personal appearance of the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and ensured his appearance. It appears that while the Civil Appeal No. 629/2022 arising out of SLP No. 30621/2011 was placed before the Hon'ble Apex Court for consideration, a direction has been issued to the authorities to undertake the exercise in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in same Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2022 "Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors", reported in (2022) 10 SCC 595 [LQ/SC/2022/114 ;] .
5. In the penultimate paragraph of the order, on a complaint of petitioners against authorities not convening the DPC, Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 22793/2022 directed the State to obtain instructions and file an affidavit within a period of eight weeks.
6. Shri Pawan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact the subject matter of dispute before the Hon'ble Apex Court related to proportionate representation of backward classes in different services for promotional purposes. The coordinate Bench of this Court in its decision dated 30.04.2016 passed in W.P. No. 1942/2011 has found that the State Government did not carry out proper exercise to ascertain justifiable representations of backward classes in different services under State on different posts attributable to non-collection of quantifiable data. As a result, the Division Bench had quashed the promotions of persons belonging to reserved categories in para 38 of the judgment and ordered their reversion. Because of such alarming situation arising out of the impugned judgment, the State rushed to Supreme Court filing SLP No. 13954/2016. Hon'ble Supreme Court protected the promotions by order of status quo on 12.05.2016. As a matter of fact, the said order by no stretch of imagination could have been construed by the State to avoid holding of the DPC for promotions for open category of the unreserved posts affecting officials of various departments under the State. Due to such unwarranted attitude of the Government hundreds of officials seeking promotion against unreserved category have been denied promotions and even reached the age of superannuation. Petitioners are also victims of inaction of the State Government and now standing at crossroads with no certainty for conferment of benefit of promotions as per the eligibility and selection by the DPC. A welfare state run by rule of law is not expected to adopt such unscrupulous and 'don't care attitude' towards its employees/officers who have served them for few decades and likely to reach the age of superannuation. The State Government while approaching the Supreme Court through SLP No. 22793/2022 is only to protect High officials against contempt proceedings and did not take any serious steps for clarification of the order of status quo passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 12.05.2016. Its almost more than six years the entire process of promotions across departments in the State of Madhya Pradesh has been kept in limbo. Learned counsel further submits that in fact and in effect the innocuous order of status quo passed by Hon'ble Apex Court has been misused by the State Government with some ulterior motives and a collateral purpose to deny legitimate claim of officials for promotional benefits against unreserved posts. Learned counsel therefore submits that in the aforesaid backdrop of the factual matrix this Court may issue a mandatory order against the respondents to purge the contempt convening DPC for consideration petitioners' claims for promotion against unreserved category as the same in no way tantamount to violation of the order of Supreme Court or status quo. Learned counsel submits that at the time of filing of the writ petition in 2020 there was 69 posts of Deputy Director in unreserved category lying vacant and by now must have crossed hundred in number.
7. On the contrary, Shri Mody submits that in the light of the order passed on 31.01.2023 by the Apex Court, this Court may again defer the hearing of the contempt case.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Indeed it is disturbing that bonafide claims of petitioners, seeking consideration for promotion against unreserved category on promotional post, have been denied, despite two judicial orders passed by the writ court dated 09.03.2022 in W.P. No. 14029/2020 and the writ appellate Court dated 20.09.2022 in W.A. No. 790/2022. In fact, State Government is not expected of such indifferent attitude and reprehensible conduct in the context of legitimate rights of its employees/officers for no justifiable reasons. We find substantial force in the submission of Shri Dwivedi on the touchstone of concept of justice, equity and good conscience. In all fairness wisdom must prevail upon the State Government to act fairly and reasonably in the context of the matter at issue instead of taking recourse to avoidance and indifference. Fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India available to petitioners neither can be eschewed nor marginalized by the State in any manner whatsoever.
10. However, maintaining judicial discipline, we defer to issue mandatory directions today and leave it to the petitioners to seek appropriate directions from the Apex Court.
11. List after three weeks, as prayed for.
