N.K.DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that he was superseded in the matter of promotion on the post of Additional Director and by order dated 17.3.2005, the respondent No.3 a junior to him was promoted on the said post. It is contended that seniors are to be considered in terms of the provisions of M.P. Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for brevity) and in case the rightful consideration of the case of the petitioner would have been done, he would not have been superseded in the matter of promotion. It is contended that only because the downgraded Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as ACR for brevity) of the petitioner, in terms of the comments made by the reviewing authority were accepted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as DPC for short), the petitioner was superseded in the matter of promotion. Such a downgrading was not approved by the final accepting authority, therefore, such an act on the part of the DPC was not correct. In terms of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, the DPC was required to assess the grading of an ACR on its own, only if there were conflicting opinion given by the final authority than the initiating or reviewing authority. Since the final authority has duly accepted the gradings of the ACR as done by the initiating authority, power prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules was not required to be exercised by the DPC and regrading of the ACR of the petitioner was not permissible. This being so, since the petitioner was illegally superseded in the matter of promotion, the writ petition is required to be filed.

(2.) : Contesting the claim made by the petitioner, it is contended by the respondents by filing a return inter alia that the case of the petitioner was considered along with all eligible persons. The DPC meeting was held on 15.2.2005 in terms of the Rules. The criteria laid down under the Rules were made applicable as the case of the petitioner was to be considered for promotion on the basis of merit- cum-seniority. Since the petitioner has not achieved the benchmark assigned as he has not earned the sufficient marks on account of evaluation of his ACRs, he was not found fit for grant of such promotion and, accordingly, the junior the respondent No.3, who achieved the benchmark, was found fit for grant of such promotion and was granted such promotion by the order impugned. There is no illegality committed in the matter of consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

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