^ BM^RIlJ^ *P _4DMiNIS'm^?IVE,,TRI3yi4£.^RAIPUR ^MOi ( Origihal Appli<%tion No, o£ 1999 .) c^f&^^)^: In the matter o£ s G.P.Pathak, Aged 56 Years., son of Late Shri Nathuraa Pathak, Assis- tant Fisheries 0£ficer, posted JLn t.ho 0£fioe o£ Assistant Dxrector^ Fisheries^ RaJnandASaoa Versus»__ .' The State o£ Madhya Pradesh, Represented by . 5- 1 * The Secretary, Government 6£ Madhya Pradesh, Department of Fisheries, Vallabh Bhawan,Bhopal 2*' The Director of Fisheries, Government of Ma<3hya Pradesh, Bhopal«i e ^ ^ * APPLICA.NT.. R^POIfi^TO.: Application U/s 19» AdmXnistrative Srlbunals Act, 1985, ^,A^'^ ^^fe^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR Slnaie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava^_,L PETiTIONER RESPONDENTo WRiT PETiTsON i3i N0.2778fgu05 G.P. Pat'nak Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another Present - Shri CJ.K.Rao, counsei aiong 'with Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsei for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate GensraE for ths State. ORAL (Passea* on 18th July, 2010) This petition has been fiied by the petitioner agarieveu on account of non- promotion and aiieged supercession in the rnatter of promotlon to the post of Assistant Director, Fisheries. 2. Facts necessary for decislon of this petition are that the petitioner was Initiaiiy appointed as Fisheries inspector in the year 1862. In the year 1884, petitioner "was connrmed on the post of Fisheries inspector w.e.f. 25/11/1980 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Flsheries Officer w.e.f. 17/12/1986. Petitioner was aggrieved on account ofthe orders passed eariier by which he was confirmed w.e.f. 25/11/1980. On representatron made, petitioner was iater on deciared as confirmed on the post of Fisheries inspector w.e.f. 1/10/18S6 and granted notionai promotion as Assistant Fisheries Offscer w.e.f. 30/03/1977. Later on, those benefits were withdrawn una'er cancejiation order, ieading to fiiing of petition before the Tribunai. in course oftime. a departrnentai ..^vS^^^^, y.^^^S&. I •\,^y action was initiated which cuiminated in order dated 24/11/1995 (Annexure A/6) by which a penaity of censure was imposed on the petitioner. ^- 3. On 1/7/1886, an order of promotion frorn the post of Assistant Fisherieb Officer to Assistant Director was issued vide Annexure A/7, which did not contain the narne of the petitioner. Accordlng to the peutioner, one of his junior narneiy Uma Dutt Tripathi was also promoted. Petitioner preferred a representatjon on which he was cornmunicated vide memo dated 29/01/1997 (Annexure A/1) that the petitioner couid not be granted promotion as the DPC did not find him frt for prornotion. 4. Submission of learned counsei for the petitjoner is that the petitioner was entitied to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director, Flsheries notwithstanding the order of jmposition of penaity of censure vjde order dated 24/11/1995. His record of service was unbiemish. There were no adverse remarks except one which was aiso iater on expunged. He further subrnits that on the criteria iaid down by respondents themseives, he was entitied for due consideration by taking into consideration his performance, Annual Confjdentiai Reports and oniy on the ground of penalty of censure imposed, he couid not be he'id unfit without consideration of the entire servlce records with reference to the facts and circumstances leading to imposition of penaifry of censure. Learned counsei for the petitioner further submits that from the return of the respondents and reievant minutes of DPC produced before hls Cou?l, vioiation of Government circuiar dated 27/2/1875 and 2/5/1990 is apparent. ^- "'l^. 'l 5. On the other hand, subrnission of iearned counsei for respondents Is that there is no iiEegajity in the action of respondents. Petitioner has a right of belng considered for promotion whicn has been fuliy protected. Petitioner couid not ciaim promotion as of right. On the norms iaiu down by the committee, the case of the petitioner was considered aiong wlth other eiigibie candidates and the Departmentai Promotion Committee recorded that as the penaity vvas in currency, petitioner couid not be promoteu. The representation fjied" by the petitioner was therefore rightiy rejected. 8. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 24/11/95, a penaity of censure was imposed on the petitioner. The records piaced before this Court reveais that Departrnentai Prornotjon Commjttee was convened cn 2273/1996, to considerthe cases of eiigibie Assistant Fisheries Officers for promotjon to the post of Assistsint Director, Fisheries. 7. The question which arises for consideration in this petition is that whether the case of the petitioner has been considered in just and proper manner whiie hojding him unfjt for promotion. Though there js no right to be promoted, a right to be considered for promotion in accordance wlth the iaid down norms and critena is weil recognised and a Government servant is entltled to be considered by uniformiy appiying the norms and criteria for promotion. Petitioner has piaced on record, Government circuiar dated 27/2/1875 and another circuiar dated 2/5/1990 issued in continuation andciarification of eariier cireujar inciuding circuiar dated 27/2/1875. in the aforesaid frwo circuiars, it has been laid down that in cases, where minor penaifry has been imposed, his case may be considered in the Departmentat Promotion Committee and suitability shouid be assessed after taking into consideration eariier records and assessments of his '^ CS3 4 work as aiso taking into consideration the entire circumstances leading to imposition of penaifry. 8. From the minutes of DPC proceedings, which has been piaced before this Court by respondents, it is found that the name of the petitioner has been inciuded in the list of officers deciared unfit and against the name of the petitioner, it has been mentioned 'Dar/d Ptabhavsfwei'. From the aforesaiu details, it is found that the petitioner was found unfit on the ground that punishment was in currency whereas oniy penaity was that of censure. Neither the order of penaity nor any other ruie or guideiine is specified as to what would be the period of currency of such penaity. By its very nature, it is one tirne punishrnent. The circumstances which ied to imposition of penalty of censure, rnateriai appearing against the petitioner in that enquiry was not taken into consideration. The minutes of DPC aiso do not contain any detaii to refiect appijcation of rnind with regard to the entlre records of service and various ACRs of the petitioner. 9. in view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that whlle considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, the norrns and criteria laid down by the State Government in its circular dated 27/02/1975 (Annexure D/5) and 2/5/1990 (Annexure D/4) were not appiied in Ets true spirit. 10. Consequentiy, this Court comes to the concjusion that the case of the petitioner was not properly considered and therefore respondents are obliged under the iaw to re-consider the case of the petitioner for promotlon in accordance with the norrns iaid down vide aforesaid two circuiars. c?d 11. Sn the resuit, this petition is aiiowed in part. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Director, Fisheries b-y- hoiding a review DPC as on 22/3/1896 in the Sight of the observations made by this Court and dreuiar dated 27/02/1975 (Annexure D/5) and 2/5/19^3 (Annexure D/4) ofthe State Govemment. in case, the petitioner is found fit for prornotion, notionai benefit wiii accrue to the petitioner, except arrears of pay. Moreover, pensionary benefits in the event being found fst for prornotion, shaii be granted, as the petitioner has retired during the pendency of this petition. No order as to costs. ——_-_—___ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude