D.P. SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed as Original Application before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, ventilating the grievance with respect to the promotion of respondents No. 4 and 5 on the post of Principal Class-II, superseding the claim of petitioner vide order dated 5.2.2003. The Original Application has remained pending when the Tribunal was closed and the same is transmitted to this Court and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that he was initially appointed on the post of Instructor on 9.6.1962 in the Industrial Training Institute. Later on, the petitioner was promoted on the post of senior Instructor in the year 1968 and thereafter on the post of Group Instructor. Vide an order dated 1.1.1999, he was promoted to the post of Vice Principal. Throughout respondents No. 4 and 5 were shown junior to him. In the order dated 1.1.1999, the petitioner was shown at serial No.23, whereas, the name of respondent No.4 was at Serial No.34. Even the name of respondent No.5 was not shown in the said order. In the seniority list, the petitioner was shown senior to respondents No. 4 and 5. However, while considering the cases for promotion on the post of Principal Grade-II, he has illegally been superseded. This being so, the petitioner claimed the relief of promotion on the said post from the date the juniors to him were promoted with all the consequential benefits.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and they have contended that in terms of the Rules entitled M.P. Industrial Training (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1992, consideration was to be done on merit-cum-seniority, for promotion on the next higher post shown in the Gazetted Rules. A Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as DPC for brevity) meeting was convened on 12.7.2002 in which cases of all such persons who were within the zone of consideration were considered. The criteria were prescribed by the DPC in the proceedings and after due consideration since the petitioner had not fulfilled the criteria laid down, his name was not included in the select list. The respondents No. 4 and 5 were found fit by the said DPC and were put in the select list, therefore, they were promoted. According to the respondents, since the right to be considered for promotion is the only right available to a Government employee and such right is rightly granted to the petitioner, no case is made out to grant any relief as claimed and the petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed.