SANJAY KHEDKAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner working in the Scheduled Caste Development Department of State of Madhya Pradesh, has approached this Court ventilating his grievance against the order by which juniors to him, the respondents No.4, 5 and 6, have been promoted on the post of Deputy Commissioner ignoring the claim of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of District Organizer on account of his selection by the Public Service Commission. In due course on account of meritorious services, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Director of the Department with retrospective effect from 13.12.2004, by an order dated 23.05.2006. Since the petitioner was not timely promoted on account of error on the part of the respondents, while issuing the order, the seniority of the petitioner on promotion was also fixed over and above the persons mentioned in the said order. The fact remains that there was a departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner when the D.P.C. was convened on 15.10.2004. The recommendations in respect of the petitioner were kept in the sealed cover by the D.P.C. The orders of penalty were issued against the petitioner, which orders were set aside by the State Government in appeals of the petitioner, as a consequence, the promotion of the petitioner was ordered.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner when his seniority was fixed, he was to be considered for promotion on the post of Deputy Commissioner. However, when the D.P.C. was convened in the year 2008, the case of the petitioner was not properly considered and again juniors to him were promoted vide order dated 03.10.2008. Since he was illegally superseded, without appreciating the ACRs of the petitioner in appropriate manner, he was required to move an application for supply of copies of ACRs so that he may agitate the matter in appropriate manner. However, the ACRs were not made available to the petitioner and that being so, it was not possible for him to verify as to how the claim of the petitioner was considered. It was categorically contended by the petitioner that the ACRs of the petitioner were tampered inasmuch as the downgrading reflected in the ACRs was noted down in the master chart, which was placed before the D.P.C. for consideration and this being so, the case of the petitioner was not rightly considered. In view of these allegations, the petitioner claimed the relief of promotion on the post of Deputy Commissioner/Project Administrator with all consequential benefits.

(3.) THOUGH a specific allegation was made by the petitioner in his petition with respect to improper assessment of his ACRs in paragraph 5.9 of the writ petition but the reply to the said allegation was not given in appropriate manner by the respondents as no parawise reply of the petition was filed by the respondents, therefore, this Court directed production of the D.P.C. record as also the ACR folders of the petitioner to ascertain the fact whether there was any downgrading made in the ACRs of the petitioner or not. The said record is placed before this Court for perusal.