Madhya Pradesh High Court
Visambhar Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Review Petition No.1217/2017
(Vishambhar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.)
GWALIOR, 16.01.2018.
Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Bhargawa, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.
Heard on I.A. No.16014/2017 an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
On due consideration and looking to the contents made out in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing of this review petition is hereby condoned.
With consent, heard finally.
This review petition has been preferred by the petitioner for verification in the order dated 05/05/2017 passed in W.P. No.225/2016, whereby the case of the petitioner has been decided and respondents were directed to open sealed cover envelop, which has been closed down after issuance of the charge-sheet.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner does not entail sealed cover procedure because he was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee vide its meeting dated 18.09.2014 (Annexure P-11) and later on, the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee were approved vide order dated 25.10.2014 and the promotion order with posting was issued on 09.12.2014, internal correspondence vide Annexure P-4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not considered his case for promotion on the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry, which was subsequent to the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee. Still no promotion order has been passed, but it appears that this Court has referred the sealed cover procedure and directed the respondents to open the sealed cover whereas no such sealed cover procedure was adopted in the case in hand. Therefore, only direction is required to be given for issuance of appropriate promotion/posting order.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made out by the petitioner on the ground of representation of facts made by the petitioner and prayed dismissal.
According to the learned counsel, the case of the petitioner can only be considered once the fact narrated in the petition as well as this review petition clearly and categorically correct for the respondents to issue promotion order.
Heard.
From the perusal of impugned order and documents appended with the Writ Petition No.275/2016, it appears that the petitioner's case was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the said minutes were confirmed. Later on, internal departmental correspondence reveals that the promotion/posting order has also been issued. Matter does not entail involvement of the sealed cover procedure. Departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner was subsequent to D.P.C. recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. For that purpose, sealed cover procedure is not required to be adopted.
Therefore, through this order, it is hereby clarified and direction is given to the respondents that they will consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of District Education Officer as per recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 18.09.2014 and appropriate consequential action be ensured for issuance of promotion/posting order. Respondents are at liberty to consider appropriate GAD circular applicable in the present fact situation.
It is made clear that exercise be completed with the timeline of three months as given by this Court in the earlier order.
With the aforesaid, review petition stands disposed of. Copy of this order be read in conjunction with order dated 05.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.225/2016.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2018.01.31 15:17:47 +05'30'