ANURADHA Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed that her case for promotion to the post of Principal without taking into account the uncommunicated adverse remarks. The petitioner came to be in service as Lecturer in the Tribal Welfare Department on 10th Dec. 1965 and she has since then been serving on the same post till now.

(2.) The respondents published Seniority List of Lecturers as on 1-4-82 some time in the month of May, 1983. The petitioner has been placed at No. 128. On 27th June, 1984, the respondents, published a list of Lecturers promoted temporarily until further orders to the post of officiating Principal (Class-II) in the Higher Secondary Schools in the State. The petitioner was not promoted to this post of Principal while a large number of her juniors were so promoted. She therefore, immediately made a representation dated 17th July and thereafter on 19-11-84 Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively. The respondent 2 vide Annexure 'C' informed her about adverse remarks pertaining to the years 1979, 1980 and 1982. The petitioner's contention is that uncommunicated adverse remarks could not have been taken into account while considering her case for promotion.

(3.) It may be noted that the respondents in their return have not controverted any of the averments made by. the petitioner in her petition. However, the learned Government Advocate Shri Solanki, appearing for the respondents submitted that it is not even the petitioner's case that her case was not considered for promotion, but in view of the adverse remarks, she was not found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee, for promotion as Principal. The submission made by the learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted. Return para 2 itself contains an averment to the effect that the petitioner's case for promotion was not considered because of the adverse remarks contained in her Confidential Report for the years 1979, 1980 and 1982. It is also admitted by the respondents till sitting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held the adverse remarks in C.R. were not communicated to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has been deprived of her right of being considered for promotion to the post of Principal. It is not the respondents case that she was not eligible for consideration.