SHRIRAM SHANDILYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was initially filed as Original Application before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal, was entertained and remained pending and was transmitted to this Court after closure of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk working in the office of Block Development Officer at Berasiya, District Bhopal, had approached the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, ventilating his grievance against the order dated 24.6.1998, by which the petitioner was reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk holding that the promotion made on the said post in respect of petitioner on 12.3.1996 was not proper. It was mentioned in this order that, there was manipulation in his Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as ACR for brevity) folder and the gradings in the ACRs were changed so as to make the petitioner more meritorious than others. On earlier occasion when the case of the petitioner was considered, he was not found fit for promotion on account of gradings in the ACRs. It is contended in the Original Application that if there was such an allegation made against the petitioner in fact, an enquiry should have been conducted, an opportunity of hearing should have been extended to the petitioner and then only any order could have been passed. However, it appears that those who were not promoted have made certain complaint and considering the same, the promotion order of petitioner was cancelled. It is contended that such an action on the part of respondents that too without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is bad in law and the order is, thus, liable to be quashed.

(3.) IT is, vehemently, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the DPC proceedings were done and when the petitioner was rightly selected for promotion, if the promotion order was required to be cancelled for any reason, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner. The Rules of natural justice requires that a right of promotion conferred on the petitioner should not be taken away without granting an opportunity of hearing to him. Per contra,it is submitted by learned Govt. Advocate that the promotion was not the right available to the petitioner, only rightful consideration for promotion is the fundamental right available to an employee. If the DPC has not rightly conducted the proceedings, has illegally selected the petitioner by committing misconduct, or by manipulation of the records, it cannot be said that any right was accrued to the petitioner and thus, he was not entitled to grant of any opportunity of hearing before cancellation of his illegal promotion.