VIJAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order of promotion of respondent No.4 on the post of Specialist in Paediatrics, on the ground that a junior to the petitioner has been promoted, whereas the claim of the petitioner was not considered and he has been illegally superseded. Since during the pendency of the present petition, by an order dated 5.5.2011, the petitioner has already been promoted on the said post, by amending the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the benefit of promotion with effect from the date the juniors to him was promoted with all the consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition in brief are that the petitioner was having the qualifications to be appointed on the post of Specialist in Paediatrics. The petitioner was senior to the respondent No.4 as in every gradation seniority list, the petitioner was shown above the respondent No.4. The claim of the petitioner was considered for the purposes of grant of benefit under the time bound advancement Scheme. According to the petitioner, such claims were to be considered in the same manner as were to be considered for grant of regular promotion. The petitioner was found fit for grant of such benefits and the benefit of selection grade pay scale was given to him on 28.7.2007. However, when the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened for regular promotion thereafter, instead of considering the claim of petitioner in rightful manner, a junior to him was promoted vide order dated 22.9.2008 and the name of the petitioner was not included in the said order though various persons working on the feeder post were promoted as Specialist. It is the stand of the petitioner that he made a detailed representation before the respondents pointing out such anomaly, but since the representation was not being considered, the writ petition was filed.

(3.) This Court has directed production of the record of DPC, which has been produced before the Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the DPC record.