AMARNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was initially filed as Original Application before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal, challenging the action of the respondents in promoting respondents No. 4 and 5 on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Radio), superseding the claim of the petitioner, who was said to be senior to these two respondents on the post of Head Constable (Radio). It was contended that while preparing a fit list, the selection Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner in appropriate manner and superseded him in the matter of bringing his name in the fit list. Out of the said fit list in which the juniors to the petitioner were named and included, promotion order was issued on 28.10.2002. The petitioner made a representation before the respondents, but since the same was not being considered, he approached the Tribunal. During pendency of the Original Application, since the Tribunal was closed, the petition has been transmitted to this Court and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) By filing a return before this Court, the respondents have contended that the petitioner was considered strictly in order of GOP issued in this respect and since in terms of the provisions made in the GOP, the petitioner was visited with two major penalties in the past services, he was not found fit for promotion. The list of such persons who were found fit for bringing their name in the fit list was prepared, and since there were vacancies, orders of promotion were issued in their respect. It is contended that since the Committee has properly considered the case of the petitioner, there is no scope of judicial review available and the petition as filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) By filing a rejoinder, all such allegations made by the respondents are refuted and it is contended that in view of the subsequent GOPs issued it was categorically provided that reduction in pay for a particular period and treating any period of absence as leave without pay is a minor penalty and cannot be treated as a major penalty. Thus, it is contended that in view of these instructions, in fact the case of the petitioner was to be considered in appropriate manner and such a benefit of promotion was required to be extended to the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner would be entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition. No additional return to such a rejoinder of the petition has been filed by the respondents.