STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. VASHISHTHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, challenging the order dated 07/08/2002 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.NO.1099/1998, was filed on 04/02/2008 and has not been admitted till date. After filing of the writ petition, it came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 25/02/2008 and the writ Court found that the petition has been drafted in a very casual, cavalier and perfunctory manner. The details of the alleged fraud committed by the OIC and incorrect statements made by him in the reply were not specifically pleaded, therefore the case was adjourned and the State Government was directed to file an appropriate application seeking amendment of the writ petition.

(2.) We have considered the submissions made by Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General on the question of admission of this writ petition.

(3.) From the facts which come on record, we find that the respondent Shri Vashishtha Singh was working in the Tribal Development Department and in the year 1998, when he was about 60 years of age, he filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and it was the case that vide order dated 15/09/1995 certain persons junior to him have been promoted to the next higher post. His case was not considered and he was not superseded. It was informed to him on 25/09/1997 that his C.R. for the year ending March, 1996 was not available therefore he has not been promoted. Challenging his supercession, an application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and in reply to the same, return has been filed by the State Government through one Shri N.K.S. Dixit of OIC. It was stated in the return that as the C.R. of the employee Shri Singh was not available for the year ending March, 1996 therefore, he has not been promoted. Learned Administrative Tribunal went into the matter and found that the promotion order was passed on 15/09/1995 and, therefore, DPC which met for consideration of the case for promotion would have been prior to 15/09/1995 and at that time of the promotion, the C.R. of the applicant for the year ending 1996 could not be prepared in any circumstances and, therefore, the promotion of the juniors made on 15/09/1995 without considering the case of the employee was not proper and accordingly allowed the application.