BAIJNATH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of Annexure A-1 dated 30.3.1990 promoting his juniors on the post of Principal, Higher Secondary Technical School. There were adverse ACRs against the petitioner for the year 1985-86 and 1987-88. These adverse ACRs were communicated to him on 25.10.1986 and 16.2.1989 respectively. The petitioner submitted representation for the expunction of his adverse ACRs. In between the DPC was convened on 2.9.1989 and the employees who were junior to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Principal, Higher Secondary Technical School. The representation of the petitioner was accepted and on 27.8.1990 and his adverse ACRs were expunged vide annexure R-1. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since adverse ACRs have been expugned, the case of petitioner ought to have been considered by respondents by constituting a review DPC to consider his case for promotion with effect from 2.9.1989.

(2.) COMBATING the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted by Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned Government Advocate that nobody restrained petitioner in filing petition before the Tribunal (since at the relevant point of time the Tribunal was functioning) restraining the respondent not to convene any DPC as his representation against his adverse ACRs is pending and therefore now petitioner cannot be permitted to say that on account of expunction of his adverse ACRs vide Annexure R-l dated 27.8.1990, a review DPC be convened to consider his case for promotion to the post of Principal with effect from 2.9.1989. The contention of learned Government Advocate is that definitely the case of petitioner can be considered after 1989. On the basis of these premised submissions, it has been contended by learned Government Advocate that this petition sans substance and the same may be dismissed.

(3.) IF the adverse ACRs are expunged, it would mean that they were not in existence. The view of this Court is that an employee is entitled for the benefit after the expunction of his adverse ACRs, otherwise there would be no use for expunging his adverse ACRs. The legal affect of setting aside of adverse remarks would be that the remarks must be treated as non-existent in the eye of law. In this regard it would be fruitful to rely the decision of the apex Court in the case of R.K. Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 126 in which it was held that after expunging the adverse remarks, an employee is entitled to selection grade with effect from the date on which he was eligible for grant of selection grade.