NARENDRA SINGH TOMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the petition is for quashment of the order, Annexure P/9 dated 26/11/2002 passed by the then Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior in O.A.No.2135/99 and direct the respondents/authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Director, Horticulture from the date when the juniors to him have been promoted.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Agricultural Assistant, thereafter promoted to the post of Senior Development Officer, Horticulture and was due for further promotion on the post of Assistant Director, Horticulture in the year 1999. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the petitioner was not having "very good" of the ACRs while in the similar circumstances, the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted who were having the similar ACRs of the petitioner but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondents/authorities and the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, therefore, the petition be allowed and necessary orders be passed.

(3.) FROM a perusal of the record, it appears that the matter is of the year 1999 and admittedly juniors to the petitioner have been promoted who were having better ACRs than the petitioner. Sofar as the petitioner is concerned, as per the ACRs, the petitioner got 'Good'. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since as per ACRs, it was 'Good', it ought to have been communicated to the petitioner. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others, (2008) 8 SCC 725 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: