Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1462 (MP)

K. N. Panday v. State of M. P.

2013-11-27

RAJENDRA MENON

body2013
JUDGMENT : Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Petitioner is working as Superintendent in the Industrial Training Centre at Rewa. When an order was passed on 6.9.2012 vide Annexure P/1 by respondent No. 2, the Director concerned promoting respondents 3 and 4, to the post of Principal, petitioner represented and when nothing was done this writ petition was filed on 19.10.2012. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that his name appears at Serial No. 56 of the Gradation List whereas respondents 3 and 4, who are junior to him and whose names appear at Serial Nos. 58 and 61 have been promoted. Inter-alia contending that there is nothing adverse against him and when juniors have been promoted, petitioner should also have been promoted a representation was submitted and when nothing was done, this writ petition was filed. 2. Even though the petition is pending since 19.10.2012, till date even notices have not been issued and for more than a year the matter is kept pending. It was listed on 6.11.2012 when petitioners counsel took time to examine the matter. 3. When the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that again an order of promotion dated 4.10.2013 has been passed, wherein various other persons junior to the petitioners have been promoted, but his case has not been considered. Inter-alia contending that there is nothing adverse against the petitioner and under normal circumstances the petitioner should have been promoted, a prayer is made that the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner. 4. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, points that normally claim of the petitioner would have been considered and a decision taken and it is submitted by him that the claim of the petitioner may have been rejected after due consideration as per Rules. 5. However, taking note of the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the reasons for not promoting the petitioner are not available, for the present interest of justice would be met in case petitioner is apprised of the position and the reasons as to why he is not being promoted. 5. However, taking note of the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the reasons for not promoting the petitioner are not available, for the present interest of justice would be met in case petitioner is apprised of the position and the reasons as to why he is not being promoted. If such a reason is indicated to the petitioner, he will have a right to assail the same in accordance to law as his representation and appeals filed to the respondents in the matter of his supersession has not been decided as yet. 6. For the present, without entering into the controversy on merits, it is directed that on the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order alongwith relevant documents before respondent No. 2 - The Director, Skill Development Department, who shall consider the representation of the petitioner and decide it in accordance with law. In case, respondent No. 2 is of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled for promotion, it shall be incumbent upon respondent No. 2 to record reasons for the same and communicate it to the petitioner as to why he has not been promoted, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, if the petitioner is found eligible, then his claim for grant of promotion at par with his immediate juniors shall be considered and action taken. 7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.