BADRILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by Shri Atul Shridharan, Adocate.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 4 submitted the reply as per rules 'seniority is subject to fitness' for the post of Class -Ill and Class -IV employees. Further contention of the respondents No. 1 to 4 is that the petitioner was working as Accountant with effect from 30 -1 -1986 and respondent No. 5 was working as Accountant since 3 -3 -1986 but according to rules only seniority was not criteria for promotion, but the same is seniority subject to fitness. It was further alleged that after the promotion orders were issued on the basis of D.P.C. held by the department on 8 -4 -2004 and on recommendations of the aforesaid D.P.C. the impugned promotion orders were issued by the Conservator of Forest, Indore/respondent No. 3. It was further contended that since the respondent No. 5 was found fit for promotion, hence, he was promoted. It was also alleged that no departmental enquiry is pending against the respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 5 obtained more marks in his last 5 years A.C.R. than the petitioner. It was further prayed that the petition have to be dismissed.

(3.) IT is pertinent to note that no rules have been filed by the respondents to find out the criteria for promotion. As per rules is seniority subject to fitness for the post of Class -Ill and Class -IV employees. Similarly, there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the petitioner was having lesser marks than the respondent No. 5 in his last 5 years A.C.R.