STATE OF M P Vs. NISAR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 27.8.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3679/ 2011(S). The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Deputy Collector in the year 1987 after his selection by Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. The respondent No. 1 was awarded a ACR grading for the year ending 31st March, 2009 "B" (good). The Reporting Officer awarded a grading "A+" (outstanding) to the respondent, it was downgraded by the second reviewing authority as "B" (good). It was not communicated to the respondent No. 1. He came to know for the first time the aforesaid fact when the ACR grading was produced in a case i.e. Writ Petition No. 1254/2011, which he filed against the ACR grading for the year ending 31st March, 2007. The respondent No. 1 submitted a representation against the aforesaid ACR grading on 20.5.2011 and when the representation was rejected then he filed a petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petition with the following directions :

(2.) Against the aforesaid order, the present appellant filed a writ appeal. This Court dismissed the writ appeal. Thereafter, a review petition was filed, which was registered as Review Petition No. 9/2012. In the review petition, it was pleaded that on the representation dated 20.5.2011 submitted by the petitioner-respondent No. 1, the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department with her noting placed the representation before the Chief Minister and Hon'ble Chief Minister accorded his approval for rejection of the representation. Thereafter, the order dated 8.7.2011 was passed rejecting the representation. The aforesaid fact was not brought to the notice of the Court, neither before the learned Single Judge nor before the Division Bench in writ appeal, hence, the order of dismissing the writ appeal be reviewed. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23rd February, 2012 allowed the review petition and recalled the order of dismissal of appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that order of rejection of representation of respondent No. 1 in regard to downgrading ACR "good" is in accordance with law, because the representation was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister with a noting of the Principal Secretary of General Administration Department and the Hon'ble Chief Minister accorded his approval for rejection of representation. The General Administration Department is the competent department to consider the representation of respondent No. 1, hence, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the concerned Minister to decide the representation is contrary to law. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others, 2008 8 SCC 725.