Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 512 (MP)

V. B. S. Rana v. State of M. P.

2007-05-01

A.K.GOHIL

body2007
ORDER 1. The petitioner was initially appointed on 10th March, 1965 and in the year of 1997 at the time of filing of this petition he was posted as Multi-purpose supervisor. He was due for promotion on the post of Malaria Inspector. In the gradation list published on 1.1.1995 his name was at Serial No. 239. His case was that his juniors, those whose names were placed at Sr. No. 246, 265, 272 and 273 respectively, were promoted but he was not promoted. It was also contended in the petition that his throughout career was unblemished, and no adverse ACR was ever communicated. In the DPC on 26th June, 1997 his juniors were promoted but he was not promoted and thereafter he filed the original application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and after abolition of the Tribunal, the original application has been transferred to this Court and registered as writ petition. 2. In the return, the stand of the Government is that in the year of 1997 he was not found fit for promotion as per the recommendations of the DPC. It was further submitted that seniority is not a criteria of the selection or recommendation by the DPC. As per fixed norms of the DPC five years ACRs of the incumbent including his work, conduct and performance are to the scrutinized by the DPC for recommending his name. 3. It was further stated that in the next meeting again the case of the petitioner was considered and he was found fit. DPC has selected and recommended his case for promotion as Malaria Inspector and vide order dated 27.5.1998, he was promoted. Therefore, the stand of the State is that the petitioner has no case as he has already been promoted in the year 1998. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the various orders passed by this Court, the respondent/State has not submitted the ACR folder of last five years and record of the DPC. All previous ACR of the petitioner were good and no adverse ACR was communicated to him, therefore, in the year of 1997 itself, he was eligible for promotion and in arbitrary manner he was not considered and his juniors were promoted. 5. All previous ACR of the petitioner were good and no adverse ACR was communicated to him, therefore, in the year of 1997 itself, he was eligible for promotion and in arbitrary manner he was not considered and his juniors were promoted. 5. It is true that various orders have been passed by this Court regarding production of record of DPC and ACR, but respondent/State has not submitted the record of the DPC and ACR folders. Now, the only dispute in this petition remained for consideration is whether in the year 1997 itself, he was fit for promotion or not. It is argued that when he was fit in the year 1998, then he was also fit in the year 1997. In the return no reason has been assigned that why he was not found fit, whether his ACRs were not good or whether his service record was blemished but the Government has not produced any record. Today, Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate produced the comparative chart of the ACRs before me for the year 1994 to 1996 in which he was graded as "Ka" which is equivalent to "Very Good" and column of the other years 1992, 1993, 1997 are lying vacant but it was for the DPC to call for the ACRs of the year 1992, 1993 and 1997 but there is nothing on record that why the ACRs of the aforesaid period were not placed. It was argued that the ACRs for the year 1992, 1993 and 1997 were not adverse as they were not communicated. Therefore, it appears that for the last three years (i.e. 1994, 1995 and 1996) ACRs were very good and the ACRs of 1992, 1993 and 1997 were not available and he was not found eligible for promotion in the year 1997. But on the same ACRs. he was considered in 1998 therefore it is clear that his case was wrongly rejected in 1997. Even today after the lapse of 10 years period the learned Government Advocate is not in a position to show the ACRs of the year 1992, 1993 and 1997. 6. Thus, it is clear that there was no legal and valid justification for not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion in the year of 1997 or saying that he was not found fit. 6. Thus, it is clear that there was no legal and valid justification for not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion in the year of 1997 or saying that he was not found fit. It is further submitted that now the petitioner has retired after obtaining the age of superannuation i.e. on 30.5.1998. Thus, under the facts ~d circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that respondents will consider the case of the petitioner for promotion w.e.f. 26th June, 1997 by convening a review D.P.C. within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order and thereafter shall take a decision on the basis of the record. If it is found that he was fit for promotion w.e.f. 26th June, 1997 his case shall be considered for grant of all consequential benefits within a period of two months and if it is found that he was not found fit then a reasoned order shall be passed and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.