HARENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Annexurc-A/6 promoting thereby respondent No. 4 to the post of Reader in the department of Pediatrics,. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were lecturers and the petitioner was senior in the feeder cadre to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that he being senior to the respondent No. 4 ought to have been considered and selected for the said post. It has further been contended that no adverse entry in the service book of the petitioner could have been considered in the absence of its communication to him while making promotion on the post of Reader.

(2.) SHRI Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate, submitted that the promotion was made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The criteria prescribed by the DPC for the purpose of promotion included 5 years ACRs. , (relating to the period from 19. 90 to 1994 in the present case ). It was further necessary as per the criteria that at least 3 years ACRs. must be good or very good and there must be at least 2 ACRs, with good report. The criteria was that there should not be any ACR with "poor" remark during the relevant period. It is submitted by Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate, that the DPC considered the eases of the petitioner as well as of respondent No. 4 and found the respondent No. 4 more suitable on the basis of ACRs. of five preceding years. The position of ACRs. of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 is reflected from paragraph 2 of thc return. It has been stated by the respondents that the respondent No. 4 was found more suitable in comparison to the petitioner and was accordingly promoted to the post of Reader.

(3.) PER contra, Shri Puspendra Yadav, submitted that the average entry contained in the ACR of 1994 ought to have been treated as an adverse entry and the same could not be taken into consideration without intimation to the petitioner. He relied upon the decisions reported as AIR1979 SC 1622 , 1979 Lablc1186 , (1979 )2 SCC368 , [1979 ]3 SCR518 Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and Ors. and 1996 I AD (SC )885 , AIR1996 SC 1661 , JT1996 (1 )SC 641 , 1996 (1 )SCALE624 , (1996 )2 SCC363 , [1996 ]1 SCR1118 , 1996 (1 )UJ636 (SC ) U. P. Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. .