R.C. GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim made by the petitioner in the present petition, which was originally filed as O.A. No.249/1998 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Bhopal, was with respect to the alleged promotions of those, who were subsequently added as respondents in the petition. It was said that zone of consideration was not properly extended by the respondents while considering the cases of promotion and, therefore, the petitioner could not be given the benefit of promotion. Upon closure of the Tribunal, the petition has been transmitted to this Court and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts given in the Original Application are that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Director and was at the relevant time on deputation with the Gas Relief Directorate. The next promotion on the post of Deputy Director, Local Fund and Audit, was due in the year 1998. Certain persons senior to the petitioner were considered and promoted by the order dated 17.03.1998 but since the claim of the petitioner was not considered, he approached the Tribunal. It was contended that the D.P.C. meeting held on 29.11.1997 did not consider the anticipated vacancies otherwise the zone of consideration would have been extended in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Reservation in Promotion and Extension of Zone of Consideration) Rules, 1997 (herein after referred to as '1997 Rules'). Since there were certain vacancies available in Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe as also in General category, the zone of consideration should have been extended so that the petitioner would have been within the zone of consideration and would have been considered for grant of promotion. Since this has not been done, the petitioner has been denied the right to be considered and, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs :

(3.) A rejoinder is filed by the petitioner placing reliance in the 1997 Rules and it is contended that had it been the case that zone of consideration is extended, again the petitioner would have come within consideration of the year 1997 and would not have been superseded in the matter of promotion. However, it is a fact that none of the juniors to the petitioner were promoted till the year 1998 as nothing is said in this respect in the rejoinder.