Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 442 (MP)

Omprakash v. State of M. P.

2005-03-25

N.K.MODY

body2005
JUDGMENT Prayer in the petition is to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) with retrospective effect from 9.1.2003 when the juniors to the petitioner were promoted. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). There were adverse remarks against the petitioner in the year 98-99. The case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer along with other Assistant Engineers was considered in the meeting of D.P.C. which took place on 28.12.2000, but there were adverse remarks against the petitioner in the ACR of 1998-99, therefore, petitioner was not found fit for promotion. Further case of the petitioner is that ACR of the year 1998-99 were communicated to the petitioner on 23.8.2001. The representation was submitted by the petitioner against the said adverse remarks. Vide order dated 26.12.2001, adverse remarks were expunged. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted the representation for consideration of his case for promotion, but the same has been refused by letter dated 16.1.2004 which has been received by the petitioner after filing of the writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the adverse remarks of the year 1998-99 were communicated to the petitioner as on the date of meeting of the D.P.C., therefore, they could not have been considered at the time of D.P.C. Further case of the petitioner is that since upon representation, the adverse remarks has been expunged therefore, the respondents are duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion by holding review D.P.C. meeting. Learned counsel for respondents submits that since the adverse remarks were expunged later on, therefore there was nothing wrong on the part of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for promotion on 28.12.2000. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 AIR SCW 1616 U.P. Jal Nigam v. S.C. Atri and another, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "On the date on which respondent was considered along with other Executive Engineers for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, there was an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 in his character roll on account of which he was not promoted although a representation against the adverse entry was pending. This adverse entry was subsequently expunged as his representation was allowed. The effect of the order allowing the expunction of the adverse entry would be that on the date on which he was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, there existed no adverse entry in his character roll. Subsequently, it cannot be said that the respondent was not promoted on account of his unsuitability. That being so, the High Court was justified in ordering that respondent on being promoted, though subsequently, shall be entitled to reckon his seniority with effect from the date on which person junior to him was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer". The case of the petitioner is identical. In the circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall constitute a review D.P.C. meeting within a period of 3 months and shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 9.1.2003 when juniors to the petitioner were promoted and if the petitioner is found fit for promotion, all the benefits be given to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.