LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-213

STATE OF M.P Vs. ANIL KESHARWANI

Decided On April 22, 2015
STATE OF M.P Appellant
V/S
ANIL KESHARWANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 1.10.2013 passed by the learned writ Court in Writ Petition No.448 l/2007(s) directing a review DPC to be convened and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as it existed on 24.11.2004 when the original DPC met and while doing so not to consider a adverse CR not communicated to the petitioner for the year ending 2002. this writ appeal has been filed by the State Government.

(2.) THE only ground canvassed at the time of hearing was that even if the adverse CR for the year 2002 was not communicated then in view of the law laid down in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others [AIR 2008 SC 2513], followed in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and others [(2013)9 SCC 566], learned Single Judge should have directed the State Government to communicate the ACR, seek representation from the petitioner decide the representation for upgradation or otherwise and thereafter place the matter before the review DPC. Ignoring this principle of law directing the review DPC, to ignore the ACR, according to learned counsel for the State was not proper nor in conformity with the principles of law laid down, therefore, this writ appeal has been filed.

(3.) PER contra, Shri Manoj Sharma invites our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and others [(2009)16 SCC 146], and submitted that if the ACR was not communicated to the petitioner then it is not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion to the higher grade by the review DPC. Shri Sharma invites our attention to the observations made in the aforesaid judgment in para 8 after taking note of the law laid down in the case of Dev Dutt (supra), and argues that now in the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly when the ACR was not communicated for all this period for more than 13 years the direction issued by the writ Court needs to be upheld and the same does not call for any interference.