Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 468 (MP)

Nanuram s/o N. C. Labana v. State of M. P.

2013-04-05

S.C.SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Shri V. K. Patwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned G.A. for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 23-5-2006 by which the respondent No. 3, who is junior to the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Professor. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Assistant Professor on 3-1-1973 and higher pay scale was granted to him on 3-1-1989. A gradation list was published reflecting the name of the petitioner as on 1-4-2005 at Sr. No. 6, whereas the respondent No. 3 placed at Sr. No. 12. The grievance of the petitioner is that a promotion order was issued on 23-5-2006 promoting the respondent No. 3 in spite of the fact that he is junior to the petitioner and the petitioner's case was not considered for grant of promotion. 4. A reply has been filed in the matter and the respondents/State has categorically stated in the return that a Departmental Promotion Committee took place on 5-12-2005, 15-12-2005 and 29-12-2008, however as the ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2002 and 2003 were not available, the petitioner's case was not considered by the DPC and it was resolved that the petitioner's case shall be considered by way of circulation. Till date the petitioner's case has not been considered for promotion to the next higher post. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. In the present case, the sole reason assigned by the State Government for not considering the case of the petitioner is that the ACRs for the years 2002 and 2003 were not available at the time when the DPC took place. It has also been stated that the petitioner was at the relevant point of time was on deputation in Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalay, Indore. The Governor of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred by the Proviso to Article 309 has framed rules relating to promotion of the employees known as Madhya Pradesh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2002 and sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules reads as under :- "When one or more ACRs are not available for any reason for the relevant period, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the ACRs of the years preceding the period in question." 7. The aforesaid statutory provisions of law empowers the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the ACRs of the years preceding the period in question, in case one or more ACRs are not available. The respondents could have very well taken into account the Rules of 2002 while holding the DPC. Not only this till date the DPC has not been held and the petitioner at no fault on his part has been denied the promotion by the respondents. 8. Resultantly, the respondents deserve a command to hold a review DPC-DPC by circulation for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post, as in the present case, the petitioner was not at fault. The aforesaid exercise of holding review DPC be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the present case, the petitioner was not at fault, on the contrary he has been denied the promotion on account of the lapses on the part of the respondents and has been denied higher pay scale. The petitioner shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits including backwages and seniority, in case he is found fit for promotion by the DPC. The aforesaid exercise be concluded within three months as stated earlier. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.