KISHANLAL PATLE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Draftsman vide order dated 19-10-1983. He has challenged his non-promotion from the post of Assistant Draftsman to the post of Draftsman by filing Original Application No. 3838/1990 before the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. On abolition of the Tribunal the matter has reached to this Court for adjudication.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that he has been denied the promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'dpc') taking into consideration the un-communicated adverse remark recorded in his personal file and instead the promotion has been granted vide order dated 15-11-1990 to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are juniors to him. According to him, the DPC ought not have considered the adverse confidential remark which was not communicated to him while considering the matter of the promotion. He, therefore, claimed the benefit of promotion to the post of Draftsman with effect from 15-11-1990 when his juniors were promoted.

(3.) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed return and have not disputed that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were juniors to the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner's name was considered for promotion for the post of Draftsman alongwith others by the DPC convened on 13, 14 and 15th October, 1990. The DPC laid down certain norms for inclusion of the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Draftsman. As per the said norms any Assistant Draftsman shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Draftsman provided he secures atleast 10 marks in the DPC. The marks were to be allotted according to the grading of their preceding five years confidential reports. The DPC fixed the marks for the grading as follows : 1 $ d mrd`"v] mke 4 vad 2 d cgqr vpnk 3 vad 3 [k vpnk larks"ktud 2 vad 4 x lkeku;] i;kzir 1 vad 5 |?k ?kfv;k] [kjkc 0 vad