LAWS(MPH)-2012-4-50

RAM BHAROSE KAMAL Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On April 10, 2012
Ram Bharose Kamal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged his supersession. The petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard and is admittedly senior to respondents No. 4 and 5. The respondents have promoted certain juniors of the petitioner on the higher post of Vanpal in the pay scale of Rs. 3500-5200/-by order dated 21.10.2002. After filing the representations, petitioner has challenged the said order and his supersession. Shri Alok Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on M.P. Public Service (Promotion) Rules 2002 (in short '2002 Rules') submits that as per said rules, the criteria for promotion was 'seniority subject to fitness'. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that where the petitioner is admittedly senior to the private respondents herein, question of considering the comparative merits of the candidates in the criteria of seniority subject to fitness' does not arise. He submits that ACR is never communicated to him, therefore, his supersession by DPC was impermissible and liable to be interfered.

(2.) Smt. Patanker, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand supported the order of promotion of juniors. It is stated that although petitioner was senior but his case was duly considered in DPC held on 29.11.2002, which was supplemented by DPC held on 10.12.2002. It is further stated that after due assessment of record of petitioner vis-a-vis other eligible candidates, the petitioner was not found fit for promotion as he could not secure minimum prescribed bench mark.

(3.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.