Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunita Pandey vs State Of M.P. on 29 July, 2015
1
WP.1352/09
Sunita Pandey
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
29/07/2015
Shri B.Raj Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Mishra, Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Mrs. Ami Prabal, Advocate for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4, despite service. With the consent, finally heard.
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.3.2009 whereby respondent No.4 has been promoted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's supersession on the post of Assistant Superintendent is bad in law. The petitioner occupied the feeder post of UDC on 15.5.1996, whereas respondent No.4 became UDC on 15.4.1999. Seniority list Annexure P-4 also shows that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criteria for promotion was seniority-cum-fitness. Accordingly, petitioner being senior had a preferential right of promotion over respondent No.4.
Per contra, Shri Vishal Mishra and Mrs. Ami Prabal submit that although petitioner is senior, a bench mark was 2 fixed by DPC for the purpose of said promotion. Persons within the zone of consideration were required to have ten marks on the basis of A.C.Rs. of preceeding five years. It is contended that petitioner has secured only six marks and could not meet the bench mark of ten marks. Accordingly, petitioner submits that no adverse C.R. is ever communicated.
Mrs. Ami Prabal submits that there is no such pleadings in the writ petition.
Shri Pandey relied on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 (Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others).
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The DPC proceedings show that the petitioner obtained only six marks on the basis of relevant A.C.Rs. Although Shri Pandey is unable to show any pleadings that ACR was not communicated but in terms of Dev Dutt (supra), I deem it proper to dispose of this petition with the following directions:-
i) If ACR of preceeding five years were not communicated to the petitioner, the same shall be communicated to him within 60 days from the date of production of this order.
ii) The petitioner may file his representation against those ACRs. within three weeks therefrom.
iii) In turn, the competent authority will decide the representation against the said ACRs. by 3 a reasoned order within 60 days.
iv) If petitioner's grading is improved and he is able to touch the bench mark of ten marks, the respondents shall convene a review DPC as on the date original DPC was convened. The petitioner's case shall be considered in the said DPC and necessary orders be passed accordingly. With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.
(Sujoy Paul)
vv Judge