STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SRIKANT CHAPHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) Srikant Chaphekar, Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning Office, Madhya Pradesh was considered along with other Assistant Directors by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on March 18, 1981 for promotion for the post of Deputy Director and was not found fit for promotion on the basis of his service record. It is not disputed that a person junior to him was promoted. Chaphekar was, however, promoted to the post of Deputy Director on January 24, 1986. He filed an application before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in November 1991 seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 1981 when a person junior to him was promoted. The Tribunal by its order dated February 21, 1992 allowed the application directing the State of Madhya Pradesh to promote him to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 1981 and to consider him for further promotion to the post of Joint Director from the date when the person junior to him was promoted. This appeal by way of special leave is by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) It is not disputed that the DPC superseded the respondent on March 18, 1981 on the basis of adverse reports in his service record for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79. His representation against the adverse reports was accepted on October 11, 1982 and the remarks for the year 1978-79 were completely. expunged whereas for the year 1977-78 were partially "expunged. On May 8, 1984 he submitted a representation to the Government requesting that he be considered for the post of Deputy Director as the adverse remarks from his service record stood expunged. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent made any other representation before the State Government. The Tribunal went into the merits of the service record of the respondent and came to the conclusion that he could not be superseded for promotion. The Tribunal based its findings on the following reasonings: