RIGINAL APPLICATIO Dr. RAM NIHAL PANDEY Son of Late Radheshyam Pandey, Assistant Ayun/ed Officer, Khamaria‘ Tahsi! Baloda Bazar District RAIPUR MP. APPLICANT VERSUS 1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Through Secretary, Health & Education Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) Bhartiyé Chikitsa Padhdhati & Homeopathy (Madhya Pradesh) 3 Through Director Near Liii Talkies, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. Superintendent cum Dist. Ayurved Officer Behind D.K. Hospital Raipur MP. NON—APPLICANTS O N \ . JQST m W p {$}NU3/’;{0f Wm .. .. EW‘W.W Wm mmmw WW @W ~0?_, agamm \ r Omcers were promoted to the post of Ayurved Chikitsl Omar, but, again petitioner was not promoted ough number ofgunior oMoers e petitioner med repreeertation . on 1692.1999 and 20.03.1999. gain on 06.11.1999 mother A promotion order was issued by hich 110 Assistant Ayurved Officers were promoted to the post fAyurved Childtsa emcer. ‘ By this order, the petitioner was n superseded by his junior a i officers. Thereafter, one supplem ntary order of promotion was also issued by which 9 more ju ior Assistant Ayumed OfEcers - were promoted to the post of Ayurv Chikitsa Omoer. ner submits that the petitioner has been iliegaliy deprived from promotion ever since 1994. ‘ According to the petitioner, till the date of promotion no adverse remark was communicated to h The adverse remark was i . communicated to him belatedly vi e memo dated 21.03.1994 in ‘ respect of the period of ending 31" submitted repreSentation against s ch remark vide his Ietterdated 04.06.1995 (Annexure-N44). Ho ver, fact remains that the date "\ a on which DPC was held, such re ark was not communicated to \ him. Leamed counsel for the pet' ioner further submits that when were promoted. Aggrieved by thist Learned counsel for the pet' arch 1992. The petitioner has ; WW.WW.W “mm 6A for promotion. 9 annexed along with returniAn exure-RI1) ’rt has been sated that the petitioner was not found fltf r promotion. On the other hand, tea ned:eounsei for the respondens submits that the petitioner was onsidered for promotion, but upon r consideration of thecase of th petitioner, he was not found ht for the promotion. committed. number of juniors were promoted denied ptomotion and no demsv _ representation. :The petidoner hnd made representation but again he was sopersaded when order f promotion was issued‘promoting another 11d Assishnt Ayurved Counsel for, the petitioners 'is ' icers. It is urged by the teamed. g p t in the remrn, the respondento have not disclosed any reaso what so ever as to why the . petitioner was superseded and n what basrs ho was not found ft Even In the ommunrcatlon dated 13.12.1999 xmwwwwusw- JMw”ee a xmuww- . for the period ending 315‘ March, 1992. ._Bec_ause of such adve se remsrk; if the pegtioner hasgnot‘ been found tit for prontotion, n iliegaiity can be said to have been petitioner in respect of his C. in the yeam‘h‘e'ms—ritegaw— an was taken with regard to his An adverse emark was communicated to the a [i ‘ mam w msgg mmmvfaa ‘3 v $ q w ag%i§§ "' ‘ W ‘ mm mmw P (30%“, m r mimmm %1/z% 05 ._/9_ WWW ®€tW $mm I have heard Iearned counse lfor the parties andrperused the s a records It Is apparent that the frst order of promotron was Issued lt has not been denredwbiy the - resporjdents 111a by this order, omeers junior to the petitioner were pro'meted and the petitioner suffer on 18.01.1994 (Annexure—AI2). supersession. From the memo ’ dated 21 .031994‘, it is clear thatt e adverse remark in respect of the relevant period ending 31" Ma ch 1992 was communicated for the first time after consrderatron o the case of the promotion and issuance of the order of prom tion dated 18.01.1994. The petitioner had submitted represen tion against the adverse remark ‘7 (Annexure—Al1 3), but, there is no ing on record to show that such representation was ever taken up for consideration and any order was passed in this regard. itis al o nototear front-the record arid. from the return; submitted rby her for the promotion in the‘year: V; 1997», thetsaid re§presentation of the petitioner was placed before/f: the Departmental Promotion Corr not placed any material to justify tt for promotion when 110Assista'nt the petitioner suffered adverse on 06.11.1997. Assuming that We? \r considering the case of the petitio .the respondents whethv mile imittee. The respondents have at the petitioner was not found ft Ayurved Officers were promoted ($0 EW.W.W Wm mm Ax z) ($3M 3//§40i5 petitioner. lf upon consid ration. the petitioner is found m ior promotion he will be entitled o consequenthl benetia eomept actual x: monetary benefits in so far a the arrears of pay are concemed. Sd/— t ;Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge »my W. a mm mm mm m‘mmw mmawm as aim aim remark and the same was pertaining to the period ending of 31s” , March 1992 this was out at purvrew of the consideration In DPC held In the years 1997-98 a d 1998-99 As such the :espondents have failed to demonstrate ny just and proper basis denying the‘ promotion to the post of A urved Chikitsa Adhikari.»This petition therefore deserves to be allo ed. The respondents are directed to I rconsider the caseof the peti 'oner for promotion as on me date he suffered his first superse sion Le. on 18.01;1994. >While considering the case of the promotion, uncommunicahed adverse remark shail. not be taken in consideration to the prejudice of the