ARCHANA BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking promotion on the post of Professor (Geography), assailing the recommendations of the D.P.C. of the year 2007 granting promotion to the respondent no.4 being junior, this petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also prayed for consideration of his case afresh by a review D.P.C. ignoring the uncommunicated adverse entry of the year 2002 and if found fit she be promoted with all consequential benefits from due date.

(2.) After perusal of the pleadings of the petitioner it is apparent that the services of the petitioner are governed by the rules known as M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990. She possesses the requisite qualifications as prescribed in the said Rules for the purpose of promotion; but her promotion was denied on account of adverse communication of the year 2002, i.e. 'ga'. It is her contention that the said adverse entry has not been communicated, however, it cannot be taken note of by the DPC while considering her case for promotion. In support of such contention reliance has been placed in the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Gurudial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1979 2 SCC 368 and Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, 1987 2 SCC 188. It is her contention that the entries of the year 2001 is of 'A' category. However, for the entry of subsequent year, i.e. 2002, without assigning any reason downgrading is not permissible. Reliance has been placed in the judgment of the Apex court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others, 1996 2 SCC 363 (para 3) and Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India, 2008 8 SCC 725. It is her contention that the respondent/State has not denied the aforesaid factual position. In such circumstances, the averments made in the writ petition ought to be admitted. To buttress the said contention reliance has been placed in the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Asha Vs. Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Science and others, 2012 7 SCC 389 (para 17), R.Hanumaiach Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2010 5 SCC 203 (paras 19 and 20) and a judgment of this Court in the case of M.P. Prani Raksha Sangh Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2011 2 MPLJ 428. However, it is urged that the relief, as prayed for in this petition, may be granted.

(3.) The respondent/State by filing the reply in para 5 has contended that for promotion from the post of Assistant Professor to the post of Professor, requirements have been specified as per Schedule IV of the Rules of 1990. Out of those 5 requirements petitioner do not fulfill the requirement of having the 'good' ACR. It is said that in the year 2002 the adverse entry 'ga' has been recorded in place of good, therefore, she has rightly been denied promotion and the incumbent has rightly been promoted on the post of Professor. In view of the aforesaid it is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.