Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1023 (MP)

S. K. Jain v. State of M. P.

2004-12-16

DIPAK MISRA

body2004
ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as an LDC in the Department of Agriculture on 5-3-. 1965. By the time of filing of application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal) the petitioner had put in 28 years of services and, as pleaded by him, he was visited with minor punishment in the year 1986 which was assailed before the Tribunal in O. A. No. 281/1991. It is put forth in the petition that he had served in the Department with utmost dedication and to the satisfaction of his superiors and got maximum pay scale in the cadre of LDC in March, 1990. 2. According to the petitioner though he had put in number of years of service his case had not been considered for the post of UDC though his name features at serial No. 1 in the gradation list of LDCs prepared on 31-7-1990. It is urged that the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 who are juniors to the petitioner are shown at serial Nos. 2 and 3 of the final gradation list and the respondent No. 4 had been promoted to the post of UDC in the year 1990 and the respondent No. 6 had been promoted to the said post in the year 1992. It is set forth that the case of the petitioner had been ignored and, therefore, he submitted a representation, Annexure-A/2, to the competent authority. Thereafter he also served a legal notice through his counsel but nothing concrete happened. In these circumstances prayer has been made to confer him the benefit of promotion keeping in view the seniority has been reflected in the gradation list dated 30-7-1990 and further to quash the Departmental Promotion Committee's order whereby his case was not considered, or in the alternative, to promote him to the post from the date when his juniors were promoted. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 contending inter alia, that the petitioner was initially recruited as LDC in the Department of Agriculture and the said Department was bifurcated and a Department of Horticulture was created in the year 1982. The petitioner opted for Horticulture Department and thereafter he has been working in the said Department. The petitioner opted for Horticulture Department and thereafter he has been working in the said Department. The conditions of service of the petitioner are governed by the M.P. Agriculture (Horticulture) Ministerial Service Recruitment Rules, 1987 (for brevity 'the Rules') which came into force on 30-9-1988. In accordance with Rule 4 of the said Rules a Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted. As per Rule 15 of the Rules selection for inclusion in the select list is to be based on merit and suitability with due regard to the seniority. A junior is promoted if he has exceptional merit or the suitability. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 27-3-1993 along with other persons. The DPC fixed the criteria that out of five years of ACRs three years of ACRs should be good and last year should also be good. The ACR of the petitioner was not upto the mark and, therefore, the DPC did not find him fit for promotion. 4. I have heard Mr. Manoj Sanghi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for the State. 5. It is relevant to state here when the matter was subjudice before the Tribunal it had directed the proceedings of the DPC held on 27-3-1993 to be produced before the Tribunal. After the matter was transferred the same has not been produced. The leaned counsel for the petitioner could not apprise this Court whether his case for promotion has been considered in subsequent years. One thing that emerges is that as the petitioner had claimed to be promoted from the year 1990 when his juniors were promoted. In the return there is nothing to indicate on what basis the respondent No. 4 was promoted in the year 1990 and the respondent No. 5 in the year 1992 except stating that the grievance challenging the promotion is barred by limitation. What is being stated in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC on 27-3-1993 and he was not found suitable. The proceeding of the DPC had not been made available to this Court despite. 6. Nothing has been stated whether a comparative assessment was made between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the year 1990. The proceeding of the DPC had not been made available to this Court despite. 6. Nothing has been stated whether a comparative assessment was made between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the year 1990. In view of the silence maintained in the return, I am inclined to direct that the case of the petitioner should be convened by the Review DPC in the year 1990-1992. I am disposed to issue this direction as there is no reply in the return in respect of the aforesaid two years and the petitioner might have been found suitable for those two years. The Review DPC shall consider the case of the petitioner for the promotional post of UDC within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.