DHIRENDRA CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) The order impugned has been assailed mainly on the ground that the reason assigned in the order for not granting promotion to the petitioner has no relevance in the present case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a pending SLP arising out of order passed in W.P. No.1942/2011 (R.B. Rai Vs. State of M.P.), is related to and applicable between the parties inter se and the petitioner is not a party before the Apex Court, therefore, his promotion cannot be denied on the said premise. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire Promotion Rules, 2002 are not under challenge but the only provision in respect of filling up backlog vacancies of reserved category without collecting quantifiable data as per the observation made by the Apex Court in the matter of M. Nagraj and others Vs. Union of India,2006 8 SCC 2012, the exercise required by the State has not been fulfilled and accordingly, the promotion against the backlog vacancy of reserved category is illegal. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's case was considered by the DPC convened on 21.03.2016 for promotion to the post of Additional Director, Public Instruction and the order of status quo was directed by the Apex Court on 30.04.2016 and as such said order would not be applicable and binding upon the authority from issuing any order of promotion in view of the recommendation made by the DPC convened prior to the passing of the order of status quo.

(3.) Before deciding the issue involved in the case, certain material facts are required to be mentioned, which are as follows:-