Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalan Singh Sengar vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 15 July, 2013
Author: K.K. Trivedi
Bench: K.K. Trivedi
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.
Writ Petition No.4849/2003
Lalan Singh Sengar.
Vs
State of M.P. and others.
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.
Shri Kaustubh Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondents.
ORDER
( .07.2013) The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is with respect to the validity and propriety of the order dated 7.5.2003, by which the respondent No.4 has been promoted on the post of Joint Director, Veterinary Services. It is contended that the respondent No.4 though junior to the petitioner was considered and promoted on the said post, whereas, the petitioner, much senior to respondent No.4 was superseded in the matter of promotion in arbitrary manner. It is contended that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Director, Fisheries, vide an order dated 6.7.1983. On account of his meritorious services, he was promoted on the post of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services vide order dated 1.7.1996. Throughout in the gradation seniority list he was shown much senior to the respondent No.4, who was said to be appointed in the year 1978 initially and was promoted on the post of Deputy Director on 1.10.1997. According to the petitioner in the said seniority list, the petitioner was at Serial No.3 of the temporary Deputy Directors Veterinary Services and the 2 name of the respondent No.4 was at Serial No.6. According to the petitioner, such a seniority was maintained throughout in subsequent years and upto the year 2002, the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No.4. Since erroneously the respondent No.4 was promoted by the impugned order superseding the claim of the petitioner, a representation was made, but as nothing was done, he was required to file this writ petition before this Court.
2: Upon service of the notices of the writ petition, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their return denying the allegations made by the petitioner and categorically contending that the petitioner too was considered for promotion when the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as DPC for brevity) meeting was held. Since promotion on the post of Joint Director was to be considered in terms of the provisions of Rule 7 of the M.P. Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Promotion Rules for brevity), it was found that the respondent No.4 was more meritorious than the petitioner and, thus, against one vacant post of Joint Director, the respondent No.4 was promoted. There is no question of illegal supersession of petitioner and that being so, the entire claim made in the writ petition is misconceived. It is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed. The return was said to be filed in the year 2004, but up till now, no rejoinder is filed by the petitioner denying any such allegation. Only an application was filed for production of DPC record and ACR folders. No reason as to why such record would be necessary has been stated in the said application except the alleged supersession of the petitioner. The respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed no return.
33: Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
4: The provisions of Promotion Rules are examined. It is not in dispute that the post of Deputy Director, Fisheries, is Class-I post and post of Joint Director is also a Class-I post in the higher pay scale. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Promotion Rules prescribes promotion from Class-I to higher pay scale of Class-I post, which is to made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. The procedure laid down under Rule 7 of Promotion Rules relates to consideration of the cases for promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. It is categorically provided in the said Rule that assessment of ACRs is to be done, merit is to be assessed from the grading in the ACRs and is to be categorised in Outstanding, Very Good, Good or Average. The select list is to be prepared, putting the names of the officers who have achieved Outstanding marks on top, followed by those who have been graded as Very Good, subject to availability of the vacancy.
5: It is categorical statement made in the return by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that there were only two posts of Joint Director available to be filled in by promotion. One post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and, therefore, only one post was available to be filled in by a General category candidate. The DPC meeting was held on 23.9.2003. The gradings of the petitioner for the five years ACRs were looked into. The ACRs of the year 1996-97 to 2000-01 were taken into consideration. The petitioner has earned only one Very Good grading in one of the ACR and in the rest of the ACRs, he was graded as Good Officer. It is further categorically contended by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that the respondent No.4 has obtained A+ Outstanding grading in the ACR for the year 1998, 4 1999-2000. In the rest of the ACRs, the respondent No.4 was graded as Very Good. From this, it is clear that the respondent No.4 would have achieved 14 marks on the basis of assessment of his ACR gradings whereas, the petitioner would have received only 11 marks on the basis of his ACR grading. The respondent No.4 was rightly graded as Very Good officer above the petitioner and naturally since there was only one post available, only the respondent No.4 was to be promoted. Though these facts have been stated in the return, but the same have not been rebutted by the petitioner nor it has been contended that such a grading of the ACR of the petitioner or respondent No.4 was tampered in any manner by the DPC.
6: It is the settled principle of law that the DPC is an expert body to assess the ACRs and to fix the merit of the officer concerned. This Court will not interfere in such grading unless it is demonstrated that the same is perverse or there is any tampering in the ACR grading. When the facts were brought to the notice of the petitioner by filing the return by the respondents, it was his duty to examine the same, obtain the information and apprise this Court about such a situation. Since it has not been done, it has to be inferred that the gradings of the ACRs were such as are mentioned by the respondents in the return. That being so, there is no scope to interfere in the order of promotion of respondent No.4.
7: Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(K.K. TRIVEDI) Judge A.Praj.
5HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.
Writ Petition No.4849/2003Lalan Singh Sengar.
Vs State of M.P. and others.
ORDER
Post it for /07/2013
(K. K. Trivedi)
Judge