RAM NIWAS AWASTHY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 11.12.1998 as also the order dated 16.7.2007, by which it is communicated that after considering the case of petitioner by holding a review Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the DPC for brevity), he has not been found fit for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-I with retrospective effect. It is contended that in fact this is a third round of litigation as the petitioner has filed an Original Application No.3315/1994 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal challenging his illegal supersession in the matter of promotion, which petition came on transfer to this Court after closure of the Tribunal and was registered as Writ Petition No.9239/2003. On 31.8.2006, the said petition came up for hearing when the fact was found that bald statements were made by the respondents in their return that the case of the petitioner was considered for grant of promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-I in the year 1983, 1986, 1988 and 1989. However, no DPC records were made available to show that proper consideration of the petitioner was done in the matter of such promotion and, therefore, ultimately this Court directed that a review DPC be held, following in the same norms which were prescribed by the DPC of the year 1986 and to consider the case of the petitioner. Since the order passed by this Court was not complied with within the period prescribed in the order, a Contempt Petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court being Contempt Case No.80/2007. In the said Contempt Petition, it was found that the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation was complied with, but not within time prescribed by the Court, therefore, instead of punishing the respondents for committing contempt, a cost of rupees thousand was allowed to the petitioner and a liberty was granted to challenge the decision of the review DPC in appropriate writ petition. Since the claim of the petitioner was not rightly considered, the adverse Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as ACRs for brevity) were either not communicated or which were communicated and against which the representation was already made, but was not decided, were taken into consideration by the earlier DPC, therefore, consideration of such a claim of the petitioner was not done in appropriate manner. It is contended that since the respondents were neither producing the record before this Court nor were filing any return in appropriate manner, it would be proper to grant the reliefs claimed by the petitioner.

(2.) On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs :-

(3.) This Court entertained the petition and issued the notices to the respondents. Even after service of the notice on the respondents, no return whatsoever was filed by them. The petitioner moved certain applications for taking additional documents on record which application was allowed on 8.3.2010. Again the respondents were allowed time to file the return, but no return whatsoever was filed. The petitioner has obtained certain documents under Right to Information Act, relating to consideration of the claim of petitioner by the DPC and such documents were taken on record on 1.10.2010. Again the respondents were granted an opportunity to file the return by way of counter affidavit, but the same was not filed. On an application made by the petitioner, looking to the age of the petitioner, the hearing of the petition was expedited and this is how the writ petition is listed. There is no return filed by the respondents in the present case nor any original documents are produced for perusal of the Court.