Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 572 (MP)

Satish Virha v. State of M. P.

2012-06-19

SANJAY YADAV

body2012
Judgment Sanjay Yadav, J.- Petitioner, an Assistant Grade II in the Department of Transport, Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide this petition seeks quashment of appointment of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Non Technical) on the ground that the select list was not prepared by taking into consideration the proper and objective assessment of A.C. Rs of preceding 5 years. The petitioner further seeks direction to respondent State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries, to prepare the list afresh as per instructions contained in the communication dated 7.4.1998 and 29.7.2000 (Annexure P/4 and P/5 respectively). The proposition would, however, be different when it is established that the assessment by the Departmental Promotion Committee ignores the criteria fixed for consideration. In the case at hand it is categorically contended that, on a representation against non-promotion, the State Government on a review found that the "Kha" (good) category of the petitioner having the value of 15 marks in the scale of 100 have been downgraded as "Ga" (Average) category having the value of 10 marks. It is contended that if "Kha" category would have been taken into consideration, then, the total marks on account of his A.C.R would be 80 instead of 60. And by adding 80 marks of ACR assessment in the marks of the written examinaion then the total marks secured by the petitioner would have become 140.5 i.e., more than the marks obtained by respondent No. 6, whose marks were 136.5. The respondents, more particularly, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 does not dispute the aforementioned factual aspects. This leads to opine that the DPC did not objectively assess the petitioner and though the State Government as apparent from the communication dated 7.4.1998 and 29.7.2000 had directed the respondent No. 3 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of observation made in the correspondence. No action seems to have been taken by respondent No. 3. The question then would whether entire selection proceedings would get vitiated leading to quashment of entire proceedings or that the ends of justice could be met if a review DPC is directed. As observed above the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has already been upheld by the Apex Court and during pendency of this writ petition they have retired on attaining the age of Superannuation. As observed above the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has already been upheld by the Apex Court and during pendency of this writ petition they have retired on attaining the age of Superannuation. The cause of justice in the given facts of present case would, therefore, be subserved if the respondents are directed to convene a review DPC and consider the case of the petitioner as on 30.6.1993 in consonance with the stipulations contained in the communication dated 7.4.1998 and 29.7.2000 and if found suitable confer the benefits of promotion from the date when respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were promoted with consequential benefits except actual wages of the promotional post which should be confined to 50%. Furthermore, the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 shall not be disturbed in any manner.