Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 441 (MP)

Manoj Bhagore v. State of M. P.

2005-03-25

N.K.MODY

body2005
JUDGMENT The prayer in the petition is to quash the promotion' order dated 5.10.2002 Annexure P-5 issued by respondent 2 so far as it relates to respondent 3 and also letter dated 11.3.2003 Annexure P-8, issued by respondent 2. Facts of the case are that petitioner belongs to scheduled caste. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade III under the Special Recruitment Movement. for SC/ST category vide order dated 30.6.1993 issued by respondent 2. Name of petitioner is shown in the list at Serial No. 53. Further case of the petitioner is that in the Gradation List as on 1.4.1999 petitioner's name is at Serial No. 150 and name of respondent 3 is at S.No. 151. Similarly, in the Gradation List as on 1.4.2000 name of petitioner is at S.No. 101 and name of respondent 3 is at S.No. 102 which shows that respondent 3 was junior to the petitioner at all the relevant times. It is alleged that since petitioner has completed all the minimum qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II from Assistant Grade III, petitioner was entitled for promotion. Instead of that person junior to petitioner i.e. respondent 3 has been considered and promoted vide order dated 5.10.2002 while petitioner has not been considered for promotion. The return has been filed wherein it is alleged that as per rules case of petitioner was considered. It is further alleged that for promotion from the category of SC/ST candidate was required to obtain minimum 8 marks and for general category candidate was required to obtain 10 marks. It is further submitted that since petitioner got 7 marks, therefore, petitioner was not found eligible for promotion for the post of Assistant Grade II. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri CB Patne submits that respondents have filed the valuation chart prepared by DPC. It is submitted that from perusal of the valuation chart, it is evident that A.C. Rs. were required to be taken into consideration for years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01. Learned counsel further submits that A.C. Rs. for year 2001 has not been taken into account as it was not available. Instead of that ACR for the year 1995-96 has been taken into consideration and one mark has been given for that year. Learned counsel submits that since as per rules last five years A.C. Rs. Learned counsel further submits that A.C. Rs. for year 2001 has not been taken into account as it was not available. Instead of that ACR for the year 1995-96 has been taken into consideration and one mark has been given for that year. Learned counsel submits that since as per rules last five years A.C. Rs. were required to be taken into consideration, therefore, ACR for year 1995-96 could not have been taken into consideration. Learned counsel further submits that since in the ACR of the year 1996-97 petitioner has got 'D' which amounts to poor category. Learned counsel submits that this ACR has not been communicated to petitioner, therefore, this could not have been taken into consideration. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case without passing any order on merits, since the ACR of the year 2001 has not been taken into consideration, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the case of petitioner be placed before the competent authority along with the ACR of the year 2000-2001, which shall pass a fresh order within a period of two months. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.