R T PANTHARE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole issue which comes up for consideration in the present petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for the communication of remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Roll even when these remarks are not adverse, though at some point of time in the service career the same may come in his way in career progression.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell leading to cropping up to aforesaid issue may be noted first. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Sub-ordinate accounts Service Cadre on 28-6-1973 and was subsequently confirmed in the cadre with effect from 1-8-1979. The promotion from the Subordinate Accounts service is to that of Accounts Officer/treasury Officer in the Madhya Pradesh accounts Service. It is the case of the petitioner that though eligible for being promoted as Accounts Officer/treasury Officer, he was superceded by order dated 15-6-84 when his junior was recommended by the Departmental Promotion committee which held its meeting on 12-11-83. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court vide M. P. No. 3791/85 which was transferred to and decided by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 21-1-1-94, in T. A. No. 1753/88. The Tribunal negatived the claim put forth by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the required criteria, viz. , majority of 5 reports should be at least 'good' (better than average) and the reports of last two years should be good (better than average) and since the ^petitioner was having average to his credit, i. e. , 'c grade, he was not found suitable for promotion. The Tribunal, however, afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to approach the department against the awarding of grade 'c. The petitioner taking cue from the aforesaid direction preferred a representation, however, the same was not entertained on the ground that no case is made out for review of grading of Annual Confidential Reports of the year 1980 to 1983, vide order dated 6-3-96, Annexure-A-1.

(3.) CRITICIZING the aforesaid order it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the promotions to the post of Accounts Officer/treasury Officer are governed by the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, [known as, Madhya pradesh Accounts Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1965] and the same is on the basis of merit and seniority. It is contended that the assessment of merit is on the basis of yardstick adopted by the Departmental promotion Committee. learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 12-11-1983, points out the yardstick of merit adopted is : (i) majority of five reports should be at least 'good' (better than average) and the last two years' reports should be 'good' (better than average ). It is submitted that since bench mark was fixed by the Departmental Promotion Committee for assessing merit, any grading below the yardstick ought to have been treated as adverse to the effect that the same was coming in way of career progression and should have been communicated, enabling the petitioner to have an opportunity to represent against the same for its upgradation, and unless such opportunity is given, the same should not have been taken into consideration. To bring home his submissions the learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on judgments of the Apex Court in the case of dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others, 2008 AIR SCW 3486; State of U. P. Vs. Yamuna Shankar Mishra, (1997) 4 SCC 7 and Hav. Gantbhir Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 2 M. P. H. T. 238.