IN JTHE MJ^ SI-iTE ftDI^NIStRATIVE TRtBUNAl. • jABALinm'.r ••:<••.:.' ••::.:^ O.A.IW&^-^^]^)^ OF 1991 BETWEEN lto>p'/to'; APPLICANT(S) t B.K. Vadehca .i^'oShri Hansra3 Vadetea AND RESPONDENT (S) jl.-Sfcat;®of Madhya ^aaesh, 2tiroagh SBere-bary Va'ber Bsseu»ees I®partiaeBt, 'Vallabh Btes^aa, Shopal. 2. &igIiiear-lja-Ghl.sf, Iffater Besonrees Bepartaent, %llabti Btiatraa, Bhopal. DETAiaS OF APPLICATION •• v» Eas'^ias1 ;''^'5'f.^.'';'\?..,^;-);-lti i-SSsSaBsSSsSi N® 'fsf'^i %l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. Writ Petition IS) No.378/2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS D. K. Vadehra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now C.G.) and other Appearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL-ORDER (PassedonSl.3.2010) 1. This petition has been filed by the pedtionpr aggrieved on account of "his supersession and promotion of his juniors on the post of Assistant Engineer. 2. Fact necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is initially appointed as Sub-Overseer on 28.2.1955 in the Irrigation Departanent of the Government. On 31.10.1968, he was promoted as Overseer, which was later on re-designated as Sub-Engineer. Promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer from the post of Sub- Engineer had taken place. However, petitioner was not promoted,, whereas juniors to the petidoner shown at Sr. No. 216 to 221 and 224 to 240 inthe gradation list (Annexure A-l) were promoted, though the petitioner is placed at Sr. No.215. Petitioner submitted representation on 16.2.1987 (Annexure A-2) that in view of his ACR for the period 1983-84-85, he should be considered and promoted to the post< of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was on leave in respect of period ^*<(£S^1^., .•.••?^"' ' ^^ f^fc^) "^ ^r ..,-,-'.. ^ ll. -2- from 1.7.1980 to 2.8.1981 on medical grounds. Case ofthe petitioner is that in spite of several reminders, submission of medical certificate, no orders have been passed and on the other hand a letter dated 31.12.1990 (Annexure A-3) was issued seeking his explanation. This was replied by the petitioner by his letter dated 22.1.1991 (Annexure A- 4). It is also stated that one M.C. Mandal, whose name appeared at Sr. No. 235 in the gradation list has also been-promoted as Assistant Engineer few inonths before filing of the petidon. Petitioner is therefore aggrieved on account of his supersession one after the other leading to filing of instant petition. 3. Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the case of the petitioner was duly considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. It has been submitted that the service record of the petitioner was below average as is reflected from the details of his ACR (Annexure R-2). The case of the petitioner was considered in the Departmental Promodon Committee (henceforth "D.P.C.") convened in the year 1983, wherein the petitioner was found unfit for promotion. In order to substantiate their submission, respondents have placed on record relevant Minutes of DPC (Annexure R-3). It is also submitted that the DPC was held in the year 1983, wherein the A.C.R. for the period of 5 years from 1978 to 1982 were considered to assess the suitabUity of officers for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Since the promotions in the year 1984 were made on the basis of recommendations made by the DPC convened in the year 1983, based on consideration of ACRs from 1978 to 1982, there is no occasion for the respondents to subsequently call confidential report in the year 1983-84-85. As the petitioner was found unfit and juniors were found fit for promotion, petitioner was superseded. It has also been argued that though the petitioner was superseded in the year 1984, this -3- ^ :s«yjf 'x^"' petition has been field in the year 1991 and the petition is therefore liable to be dismissed only on the ground ofdelay and laches. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the pardes and perused the record. 5. From perusal of Minutes of DPC meeting held at Bhopal on 27.6.1983 to 29.6.1983 (Annexure R-3), it is borne-out that for the purposes of promotion from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer, a criteria of merit with due regard to seniority was applied. It also shows that for the purposes ofassessing suitability for proraotion, ACRs of previous 5 years were taken in to consideration. For the purposes of assessing ininimum merit, the DPC evolved that there should be no adverse remarks; majority of 5 reports should be at least "Good" (better than average) and last 2 years C.Rs. must be "Good"; integrity should be beyond doubt. The details of petitioner'sA.C.R. are indicated in charge (Annexure R-2), from which it is reflected that petitioner earned only one '"Good" entiy in year 1982. In so far as ACR for the year 1978-79-80 are concerned they are consistently "^T". As the petitioner was on long leave in the year 1981, no grading was given and it has been shown to be absent. It has not been demonstrated before this Court that the criteria so evolved by the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner was in any manner illegal, arbitrary or violative of any statutory rules goveming consideration of cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. While a Government gervant has a right to be considered for promotion to the next higher post in accordance with the rules, he has no indefeasible right to be promoted merely on the ground of seniority where the criteria for promotion is merit with due regard to seniority. It is found from the retum of the respondents and the Minutes of the DPC that for ri :s :%K% ;K#ssiwfc ^^^s^®^?£^:^S&^^^t'°&fe~ft"^'''-:;~''':^'''~v^ t^-^i.:-^^.',/..,- ^,-""^-.;; C£s^ - 4 - Praveen the purposes of assessing merit, a minimum merit fonnula was evolved by the respondents. Such course of action and criteria formulated cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India nor it has been demonstrated to be in violation of any statutory rules governing promotion. This Court would also take note of the fact that the petitioner suffered supersession in tfae year 1984, the petition was filed in the year 1991 only. 6. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any illegality in the acdon of respondents in superseding the petitioner and promoting his juniors in the year 1984. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge