LALAN SINGH SENGAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is with respect to the validity and propriety of the order dated 7.5.2003, by which the respondent No.4 has been promoted on the post of Joint Director, Veterinary Services. It is contended that the respondent No.4 though junior to the petitioner was considered and promoted on the said post, whereas, the petitioner, much senior to respondent No.4 was superseded in the matter of promotion in arbitrary manner. It is contended that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Director, Fisheries, vide an order dated 6.7.1983. On account of his meritorious services, he was promoted on the post of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services vide order dated 1.7.1996. Throughout in the gradation seniority list he was shown much senior to the respondent No.4, who was said to be appointed in the year 1978 initially and was promoted on the post of Deputy Director on 1.10.1997. According to the petitioner in the said seniority list, the petitioner was at Serial No.3 of the temporary Deputy Directors Veterinary Services and the name of the respondent No.4 was at Serial No.6. According to the petitioner, such a seniority was maintained throughout in subsequent years and upto the year 2002, the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No.4. Since erroneously the respondent No.4 was promoted by the impugned order superseding the claim of the petitioner, a representation was made, but as nothing was done, he was required to file this writ petition before this Court.

(2.) Upon service of the notices of the writ petition, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their return denying the allegations made by the petitioner and categorically contending that the petitioner too was considered for promotion when the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as DPC for brevity) meeting was held. Since promotion on the post of Joint Director was to be considered in terms of the provisions of Rule 7 of the M.P. Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Promotion Rules for brevity), it was found that the respondent No.4 was more meritorious than the petitioner and, thus, against one vacant post of Joint Director, the respondent No.4 was promoted. There is no question of illegal supersession of petitioner and that being so, the entire claim made in the writ petition is misconceived. It is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed. The return was said to be filed in the year 2004, but up till now, no rejoinder is filed by the petitioner denying any such allegation. Only an application was filed for production of DPC record and ACR folders. No reason as to why such record would be necessary has been stated in the said application except the alleged supersession of the petitioner. The respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed no return.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.