B P SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the memo dated 7.12.1986 (Annexure H) and 22.02.1988 (Annexure I), to direct the respondent No. 1 to 3 to promote the petitioner on the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer (for short 'the SADO') w.e.f. 28.10.1971, a date earlier to the respondent No. 7, to fix the seniority above the respondent No. 3, to confirm the petitioner alongwith respondents giving a prior notional date, to promote the petitioner as Assistant Director of Agriculture w.e.f. 01.04.1980, from the date his juniors were promoted, and to pay consequential benefits on promotion to the post of SADO w.e.f. 28.10.1971 and as Assistant Director of Agriculture w.e.f. 01.04.1980.

(2.) The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that he was appointed as Agriculture Assistant (Lower Division) in the respondent department on 25.07.1963. The respondent No. 3 to 11 joined on the same post after joining of the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Agriculture Assistant (Upper Division) on 02.09.1978 (Annexure A) and transferred to Ambikapur in the year 1964. The applicant submitted various representations for expunging his adverse remarks in his ACRs. In a similar situation, the adverse remarks in respect of respondent No. 7, for the year 1968-69 and 1971-72, was expunged and was given due seniority and also proforma promotion in the cadre of SADO w.e.f. 28.10.1971, on the ground that his adverse remarks were not communicated to him.

(3.) The petitioner also made various representations (Annexure F/1 to F/10) against his supersession and for restoring his seniority. A DPC meeting was held for promotion to the post of SADO on 05.08.1971 and the petitioner was not considered for promotion when his juniors were promoted. The DPC could not have taken place as the representations for expunging adverse remarks were still pending consideration with the respondent No. 2. The DPC should not have taken into account the adverse remarks for the year 1968 to 1972. The representations were required to be decided within a period of two months from the date of communication of the adverse remarks. However, in the ACRs of the year 1972-73 onwards, the gradings awarded are high. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 07.12.1986 rejected the representations dated 14.12.1985, 20.01.1986 and 05.02.1986. The petitioner again representation to the respondent No. 2 on 24.07.1987 (Annexure F/10) for considering his representation on merit. The respondent No. 2, vide communication dated 22.02.1988 (Annexure I) informed the petitioner that he was not found fit for promotion by the DPC and therefore, his representation dated 24.07.1987 was rejected. On account of excellent record, the petitioner was selected for posting on deputation to DRDA project as Assistant Project Officer in Gazetted Rank Class II which is equivalent to the rank of Assistant Director, Agriculture w.e.f. August, 1986. The petitioner was also given a commendation certificate for his performance in the year 1975-76.