GEETA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in this petition lies in a narrow compass. Admittedly, the petitioner is superseded by order dated 6th March, 2003 on the promotional post of Assistant Professor from the feeder post of Demonstrator. It is admitted between the parties that persons including respondent No.4 who are junior to the petitioner have secured march in the ladder of promotion against the petitioner. It is also an admitted position that the criteria for promotion is "seniority subject to fitness". The criteria is laid down in MPPS (Promotion) Rule 2002. As per the stand of respondent, the petitioner secured 9 marks for the ACRs of five years (1997 to 2001). It is stated that petitioner's grading is good for four years and it is average in one year i.e. year ending 2000. On the basis of aforesaid grading the petitioner could not qualify the benchmark of 10 marks and therefore he could not be promoted. In other words, the stand of respondents/authorities is that the petitioner could not be promoted despite seniority because, the DPC fixed benchmark of 10 marks and petitioner received only 9 marks upon evaluation of her ACRs.

(2.) MRS . Patankar, Govt. Advocate fairly submits that except in the ACR of 2000, the petitioner has been graded as 'good'. In the year 2000, the petitioner was graded as 'average' because of which she could not qualify and touch the benchmark.

(3.) I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced before me. I find force in the argument of Shri Brijesh Sharma that the curtains are finally drawn on this aspect by the Supreme Court in the Case of Dev Dutt (supra), it is apt to quote paras 18 and 20 which are as under:-