WL^^I05 State &dnlaistrativs I'r.ibBnal of Madhya-Pradesb &t Jdsalpur te.P) ^plicrfit Origlnal ^plicat.ion No. . . . . ./1997 Acua Oojce Non—^iplicso'tss St^-fee o.f M&dhya-Praaesh aRdothfirs. . BBTAIIS OB AP1PLXC&T30N (O/s.19 of the S^ate ^dninistrative tribunal &c'fc»1985) 1. Particulars of the ^pliceiat ' ?:^ .-ota's 'ra' &1 c) e. f) 8) ngne fatbers nsine date of birth qualification t Svcwci Gore. « I<ate Shri M.P.Gbr®. < 19-9-1946 S B.B.(Cj.vil) M «B.(Enviroiunent) < V.J.T.I. Ebmbay. date of c&pointment* 08.12.1965. designatlon '• Asslst^it-Engineer. offioe addcess ' Office of the Cbief fi En-gineer, P.H.E.Deptt. Ra^iur-zone, Raipur (M.P). Etetails of eespondents t . 1) State of M.P. . through » 'lhe Secretary, Public Health Bngineerlng Oeptt. Govt. Gf K-P' M^u MaRSralaya, Bhopal (»•&). • • • » •••..3: —82i. -s,\ ^-•7^l^- Engineering- In-Qiief Pub3.ie Hegltfa Englneering Deptt. Gbvt.of K.P. S atpuda-Bhawa»» Ehopal <M.P). Chainr.3», M.P.Public Service Commission, Kesidency Area xndore sn& Chainnen El%>artmental Psonotion <onimlt'tee, P .H .E .Department, '. Go'wemmen't of M.P. JESDQSS a'l.P). shrisaintosh Shukla. at present - Lecutive Englneer, Public Health Sivision, Jagdalpur, Distt.Bastar. Mr.M.M.Hasain, Member, Publlc Service CbinmissAon And Qiaianan. B.P.C. (E.HEDepart) Besifteney Area» 3NBO.BB Ua .P). Sbri Badal DgS. the tben Secretary P'H.E. at present; Secretary Industry And Qammerce Department. Obvt. of M.P.M^atralsys, Bhopal (H'P). Shri P.S.Rattoor®, Ex-Englneer In-Qilef. Public Health Engliieering Eteptt. Gbvt. of W.P. .: r/o BX1-1. Char-^nli. Bhopal (M.P) , Ifrt ^; :;;1 (SsfiiSaa •'r^:L h(:-78 ' il^Tiiilf^to ;nsii^?iri)*i \jvci ^iifirtt), yrfl<M<ifi, Rlril'Hy<< IM-P. (53 I ^^.O 3H^?T q3q»('jclij^.Ei) W^ 200^ s^nsR^aaii^?! SBLKOS'BLB SHRI MJVitINflRA MOHAN SHMVASTAVA.J. cobiisel Shri V.G.Tamaskar, SIiri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy| respondents No. 1 & 2. None for the other resFJondents Heard. 2. The facts lelevaat for i& fhe petition are that ffae Assistant Engiaeer was communicatioii dated 10.5. rclief grauted, an Originat registered as O.A. No. coinmunication dated 5.4. Aufhoritv recoxiuneaded recorded in the A.C.R. ofthe 93, vide Annexure A/l. Aanexure A/2 adverse were expunged. 3. Durmg fhe pendency Proiaotion Coininittee wasl supeiseded by proinotiag b^s led to filmg of aaother peti( O.A. No. 693/1995. Vide ov^er coi<<[<n<i1i *)i*)wVff fe><9 •(RI-^N ^SI^TSII^CT for ttiie petitioner. I. Govemment Advocate for ftie State/ ^djudication of the conti-oversy iavolved ^etitioner wiule contmuiag ia service as coalimuiucated aa adverse remark vide a [994. On representation inade and no A^plication was filed before the Tribuaal, i2/1995. In fhe nieaatune, vide 1995, Aiuiexure A/1, fhe Reportia| fijir expungement of adverse remark Ipetitioner iu respect ofthe period 1992- Tpiereafter, vide meiao dated 2.6.1995, rem^rks ia respect of fhe period 1992-93 c. of O. A. No. 92/1995, Departmeatal convened and the petitioner was juuiors as Executive Engineer. Thls ion before the Tnbunal, registered as dated 28.2.1996, the Tribunal finalfy <d-oq "tiioirttj, y-rfl'H^ld, Rril^y'i i^sriETf^re; T!"T SfT'^SiW an^ST iraq? (ijcif^ei^) ^20 g;RiTSR?rf^T3?I^T 2. disposed of fhe applicatio^. adverse C.R. for tbe period now fbere is no hurdle in directions were issued to promotion as au Executive lioldiag a review D.P.C. conuiiunication of fhe ordel found duly eligible^ fit aa^ Engtueer, he be pronioted w| which be became due for prctmotion Taldng into consideration that uie 1992-93 was expunged and also tliat ^he way of proinotion of fhe petitioner, c^nsider fhe claim of the petitioner for )ngineer w.e.f. 24th February', 1995 by njithin a period of 60 days from ffae t- and fi.irther fhat if fhe petitioner is qualified for the post of Executive |e.f. 24dL February, 1995 or fhe date on nlr 4. After fhe order was; Departaiental Proiuotion Coi] of fhe review D.P.C. conveni shows that the petitioner criteria laid down for intnutes ofthe MeetinK. proiuo|Uon Petillion 5. In fhe Coatempt altegio.g non-coiapliaa.ee of| 28.2.1996, final order wa4 Tribunal recorded that it tjie decision taken by fhe rev( ia uot considering the the post of Executive Eagin^ repoTts. Thei^after, the wdiiild petiti<(>ner wi<i[n<I1i <<iinT^"fa'<9 •ifSl'tdl'l ^ari^ran^r passed by fhe Tribunal, a review situnittee was held on 6.6. 1996. Minutes ;d on 6.6.1996 filed as Aruiexure A/7, vifas not foimd fit for promotion on the as contained ia para 2 of the said tilfion, which was liled by fhe petitioner, [fhe order passed by the Tribunal on passed on 19.3.1997, whereiu, the be open to the petitioner to assail iew Departinental Proiaotion Coininittee fit or eUgible for being proinoted to ;r on the basis of available coxifidential p^titioner has filed fhe instant petition, 78 ^sEr^winszr, y^Tt'ti-iid, Rltti^^ r^qra? ^SsSW ^20 gn^?i qacp (ijciFjci^) challenguig the action of fhi for proinotion. pa^sed oftllie 6. The maia contention fhat after the order was O.A.No. 693/1995, itwas otjlii to obtain proper gradia^ 1992-93 and then to coi]|s proiaotion to fb.e post of Exef done aiid the D.P.C. convenfc for the period 1992-93 and which is neifher just aad coinpliance of the order ear]i| He also draws attention of tUi October, 1996 of the addressed to fhe award of " % " (very goo^l) Sub.mission of leamed respondents ought to have coiapetent accepting aufhorjty ssade by fhe Reportiaj pe'titioner. In his subiaissioji, petitioner has been only created a farce of consti asszizaed so as to deprive 4ui earlier passed ia tas favour t|; Exfccuti.ve Superint4ndin coiinsel fil-st Aufbjority considd'1'ed <iii<4l»<i1i*fi<i»Ttt'fe^l'([ul'^l-i ^.ari^Tsn^T respondents ia holdiag Meetmg unfit i|)f leamed counsel for the petitioner is by fhe Tribunal on 28.2.1996 m 'ljUgatory on fhe part of the respondents petitioner's C.R. in respect offhe year jsider the case pf fhe petitioner for :utive Engiaeer. However, fhis was not ;d on 6.6.1996 assuined " ~<s " grading (tield the petitioner unfit for proinotion, proper nor caa be said to be true ;r passed by fhe Tribuaal on 28.2.1996. lis Court to a coinuiuiucatioa dated 25til Engnieer/Reporting Authonty :4nding Engiaeer fhat he recoiniaends i^l) ia respect of the period 1992-93. for fhe petitioner is that fhe obtained fhe proper gradiag from fhe -jty on fhe basis of the recoiiunendatton aad thea consider the case of fhe |i, tlie inanner in which, fhe case of fhe 1, establishes that ffae rcspondents ideratioa aad arbitranly a gradiag was 4im of the fruits of the judicial verdict Iv fhe Tribunal. ^-^L _-4 ; ..'-.r I'?-!?ii!i"F?iTO F;}^iamn5 <dcq •^Kficio, yal«'i<»,Rrti'ayt W^20 SIT^STvw (^?fgss) s^iT8R?ifer3ii^?r ^- 7. Per contra subilussioBl is fh.at the earUer order of| O.A.No.693/1995 was compped was conveaed on 6.6.1996. the petitioaer wiffa referencl opiaionofthe Coianiittee, as| graaiag out of the last two| coiisideration for protaotiola, promotion. His subaiission consider fhe case of fbe D.P.C. and as for fhe year petitiouer, petitioner was no| criteria fraiaed and uiiiformlt 8. I have considered th|i counsel Ibr the parties and p( Q adli The Tribunal Iiad eaijl O.A.No.693/1995, takmg m| coium.unicated to fhe petitio^ an.S. therefore, fhere was nc| petitioner. The Reportins 5.4.1995, had recoinm.ende(S whereupon the Chief Eugine^ fhe reinark. As a necessari' cpKifca'fll ii*ic»Vfffe'^l'lRl'^l'l ^oiKll-ail^sil of leamed couiisel for fh.e respondents the Tribiuial passed ou 28.2.1996 iu wifh ia true sptrit. A review D.P.C. I'he review D.P.C. cousidered fhe case of ^ to the criteria of proinotion. In fhe fhe petitioner would eara ouly one " d» " gradin.gs relevant for fhe purposes of petitioner was aot found fit for tis that the order of fae TribuiLal was to jtitioner, wliich bas been done by the p.992-93 " TV " gradiag was giveii to ttie i|t fouad fit for proniotion ia view of the rival contentions made by leanied ;rused the record. Uer passed an order on 28.2.1996 iu o considering that the adverse reniarks ler for fhe year 1992-93 were expiinged hurile iti considering ffae case of the Aufhority vide Annexure A/l dated for expiuigeinent of adverse reiiiarks :rvide ineino dated 2.6.1995, expunged consequence thereof, a fresh grading tt-78 anssgni ?a!FStI^»Hra? VJT.T) ^WMV, W^WIS, firtKiy ^20 an^srws ('j^g^s) gwfSR^fiasntsT $-" was reauired to be giv'en to of ftie Executive- Engineer shjaws gradiag to the petitioner in r{ 93. However, eveii before proper gradiag awarded to autbority, fhe review D.P.C. been brought before this whefher before tioldiag revi( respect of fhe coucemed coinpetent accepting authoi|ity inaiutes of fhe D.P.C., it y petitiouer s gradiags for the tAe C<|)urt ye^r 10. Por the purposes ol| Tribunal order, passed in fa^ it was incunibent on fhe proper gradings of tbe coasider fhe case of tbe pe'] held on 6.6.1996 assiuned proceeded to hold fhe petitio| 11. In the opinion of fhis respondents is unfair aad 4 order.in its true spirit. No Court as to what gradi&g waj acceptiag authority piirsuai'il <niilffl<i1i ii*fnTfffe^l '(Ri^it ^53fRl*)3II^?r the oetiuoner. Mexao dated 25.10.1996 that hc recommeuded award of "cS " sspect ofhis A.C.R. for the period 1992- [ftiis exercise could be completed aad petitioaer by the coiapetent acceptmj twas held on 6.6.1996. No material has by the respondents to show as to ;w D.P.C. gradiugs of fhe petitioner ia i.e. 1992-93 were obtaiaed from ttae in tlie department. Even froin fhe not discemable as to on what basis 1-ear 1992-93 was assumed as " ir ". due aad proper compliance of fhe ^ovi offhe petitioner earUer 28.2.1996, pa|'t offhe respondent authority to obtaiu petSfion.er and ffaen hold review D.P.C. to (itioner. Instead, D.P.C. in.its Meetmg petitioner's gradiag as " TT " and )}ier unfit for proniotion. pourt, such aa action on the part of the [aunot be said to be compiiaace of the rjiaterial has also been placed before this finatly awarded to fh.e petitioner by the jt to meiao dated 25. 10.1996, Annexure l.t-G-7 i* ilTtiIEBifeliq? i'2i!.''nt?rg)?iw \di;q"i<iqirti|, y-alwita, Rrti<Hy< W^20 an^si qa^ ('j^fg^s) g^irsR^rficTan^T (s P/5 ofthe Reportiag Authorjty petitioner's case- for proiaoti^a 12. Consequently, this p ascertain petitioner's gradui^ year 1992-93 aud fhereupoi case of fhe petitioner for whicli was earlier adopted If ffae petition.er is found fiti was' considered, aU couseq^ proiaotion froin due date o] entire exercise as directed 1| respondents wifhia a nionfhs froia. the date pro^notion wbile ofrec^ipt 13. No order as to costs. tpiitnjli iiinTit'ls'A 'iRl'^l'i 3?3<Kff3ii^?r In fue final aualysis, I find fhat fhe has not been properiy considered. •tition is aUowed. Resoondents shaU ^s, if not already done, ia respect of ttie a revievv D.P.C. to reconsider the on fhe basis ofthe same criteria, consideriag ttie case fhe petitiouer. for promotion as on the date his case lential beuefits shail follow, includiag a the post of Executive Engineer. The >y fhis Court shall be coinpleted by fhe period aad not later fhaa four ofcopy offhis order. reasdnable ^lanindra ^hanShrivastava judge