RAMCHARAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Grievance Set Forth By THE Petitioner Appears To Be That He Was Considered For Promotion On THE Post Of Chief Engineer As Was Done In THE Year 2001 But Was Not Promoted As His Name Was Included In THE List Of Officers, Who Were Not Found Fit For Such Promotion And THE Juniors To Him Were Promoted By THE Orders Issued In This Respect. Later On THE Petitioner Could Know That THE Juniors Were Promoted Only Because Of An Error Committed By THE Respondents In Not Considering THE Petitioner In Appropriate Manner. He Submitted A Representation, Which Was Considered And A Direction Was Given For Holding A Review Dpc. On THE Recommendation Of THE Said Review Dpc, THE Petitioner Was Promoted On THE Post Of Chief Engineer Vide Order Dated 11.12.2001. Since THE Juniors To THE Petitioner Were Promoted On 20.06.2001, It Was Necessary To Grant Seniority To THE Petitioner With Retrospective Effect As He Was Not Responsible For Not Considering His Case In Appropriate Manner. It Is Contended By THE Petitioner That Certain Persons Were Promoted On Ad Hoc Basis On THE Post Of Engineer -In -Chief Without Considering THE Claim Of THE Petitioner And THEreby Again He Was Superseded. In Fact THE Petitioner, Who Is A Member Of Scheduled Caste Community, Should Have Been Given THE Benefit Of Promotion By Reserving A Vacancy Of Engineer -In -Chief. However, Since THE Rules Made In This Respect Were Subjected To Judicial Scrutiny Before THE M.P. Administrative Tribunal And Said Litigation Was Pending, Only An Adhoc Promotion Of Such Persons Was Ordered. THEreafter When THE Rules Were Affirmed By THE Order Of THE Division Bench Of This Court, Re - Screening Was Required To Be Done But This Was Not Done And Since No Benefit Of Reservation Is Extended To THE Petitioner After Revising His Seniority, He Is Required To Approach This Court By Way Of Filing Of This Writ Petition.

(2.) MANY Reliefs Have Been Claimed By The Petitioner, Which Are Reproduced :

(3.) BY Filing The Rejoinder The Petitioner Has Tried To Emphasis That The Reservation Should Have Been Made Available. Certain Documents Have Been Placed On Record To Indicate That Some Of The Persons Like Juniors To The Petitioner Were Given The Posting As Chief Engineer On A Subsequent Date But Were Given The March Over And Above The Petitioner In The Matter Of Promotion On The Post Of Engineer -In -Chief. It Is Contended That Certain Chief Engineers Were Posted As Engineer -In -Chief In Different Departments And Authorities And Such A Benefit Should Have Been Extended To The Petitioner. Thus, It Is Contended That Still The Petitioner Is Entitled To The Relief Claimed.