0.A.N O. APPLICAET @® N TEE MADEKA PRADESH ADEINISTBATIVE TRIBUNAL EWCH RAIPUR PLP . capg—Q‘i ' 6 [03 A \g/ of 1998 Kfyksv“ BIEALW MISHRA s/o Late 3n Purshottam Mishra aged about £12 years, working as Tracer in Sub-Division N95 Jagdalpur, Jaga‘alpur Bastar m.P. VEasug RESPWDE‘TTS : 1. STATE OF MADINJX PEIADESH Through Secretary , Publi¢ Works Departments ‘Vallabh Bhavan Bhapal M.P 2. Chief. Engineer (East) Public warks Depar‘bmexrt, mStI‘iCt Baigul‘ M‘Po 3o superintending Engineer, Publi¢ Werks Beparment Bastar Eandal. Jagdalpur Bastar PLP. Shri R.C.Maha1ankar Post Assistant Draftszaan; Through superintending Engineer,'Public Works Depar talent , Bastar Mandal Jagdal'pur FL? . 4. .w‘5t Shr‘i K03033n’ Post Assistant Draftsman Threugh z S®erintending Engineer, Public him-ks Department, Bastar Mandal Jagdalpur M.P.r I . 6.. (a: Shri A.X.Tiwar1, Post Assistant Draftsman Public Works Eepar‘hnent Threugh : Superintmding Engineer Bas’tar Manda]. .Jagdalpur PLP. 8. $nri Mohhamad Kasim, ?ost Assistant Draftsmn Throgh : Super-intending Engineer, Public Wax-ks Department, Bastar Manda]. Jagdalpur Mt? a $hri MR. Bhagat, P es t Assis taut Draf £sman, ihrough : Superintending Engina er , Publi c works Departnen‘t , Bi 1a spur Mandal, Bilaspur FLP. 9s shri Mo B0%3re ,P0$t Assistant Draftman, Through Superintending Engineer, Public‘ works Department, Baipur Manda}. Raipm» mp. shri Coad&hire, P031; ASSistan't Draftsmarw Thraugh Swat-intending Eagineer, Public Warks Departaent, Bila3pur Eandal &Ja$pur “OP n Shri K.R.Parihar, Past £5.ssis1:ant Draftsman Thraugh superintending Engineer, Public Werks Department, Bilaspur Kandal Bilaspur MJ". ‘O 10.“: 11$ 1 wx'w‘yxzuay w- ,~_ q.;»n-,, O3 Shri R.K .‘Saraf, Pest : Assistant Draftsman Through : Super-intending Engineer, Elm Eandia, Public work Department, Raipnr FLP. Shri Jayant Jlaa, 15.; Post Assistant Draftsman Through z Supermtending -Engineer, Public works Department, Raipm' Manda]. Raipur Mn?’ 12. marw (WE) marairtéwr'as ammam mmmanéa SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra 10.2.2010 Shri Pmfull Bhalat, c Shir Arvind Dubey, P No. 1 to 3. Heard. The grievance of the mm#W ewm Mohan Shrivastava, J. titioner as setout in the petition is that while considering his ase for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Draftsman an adverse remark which was never communicated to him was whole considsration. Facts in brief neces _. for decision of the petition are that petitioner was posted as Tra er in the Public Works Department on 17. 1 1.1973. Vide order respondents No. 4 to 13 w re promoted to the post of Assistant Draftsman. The said order does not contain the name of the petitioner meaning thereby that the petitioner was superseded. With reference to gradation list (Annexure A~2), it is stated that persons were promoted and hown in the list at Sr. No. 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28 represenfation waS submitt nsel for the petitioner. e1 Lawyer for the State] respondents en into consideration Vitiau'ng the dated 4. 10. 1996 (Annexure 20 are juniors to the petitioner. A on 15.11.1996 vide Annexure A—3. Vide ‘memo dated 21.1.19 7 (Annexure A—4), petitioner was informed that he was not f0 nd fit for promotion on the basis of adverse ACR for the period e ding March, 1995. s e m §Hi$ vi 20 \ 3mm (W) mawm aénanéam x Mmwamgr ” 2 k WW§ww éswma manned counsel for the communicated the said ac March, 1995. During tenure was ever conducted against Except the said un-communicated as advelse material so as nothing adverse against him. submitted by the petitioner, been redressed. Per contra, learned the Departmental Promotion cases of eligible Tracer for Draftsman considered ACR 1992 to 1996. It is submitted awarded with remark “D” promotion. In the relevant which considered the cases petitioner, 3O eligible Tracers of the petitioner is concerned. awarded with remark ”Er” for the year 1995 he was awarded Promou'on Committee havin years candidate is awarded the pen'tionerwas not found petitioner submits that he was never verse remark for the period ending of his service no departmental inquiry him nor arxy penalty was imposed. adverse remark, which operated to deny him promotion, there was Though several representations were the grievance of the petitioner has not counsel for the respondents submits that Committee While considering the promotion to the post of Assistant for the last 5 years from the period that if any candidate has been i.e “U” he will not be considered for Departmental Promotion Committee, of eligible candidates including the were considered. In so far as the case it was found that the petitioner was the years 1993 8r, 1994, whereas in ”H” (D) category. The Departmental decided that if in any of the last 5 ith “ET” (D) , he will not be promoted, at for promotion. Respondents have m mqim E20 memiram‘ai mm#’%m $Wa¥lésr Ls negligent in submission of progress h has been mentioned in ACR of 1995. : rival contentions made by learned am m (W) ammalm mmmméa - g/ stated that the patitioner we report in the year 19Q5 Whic I have considered th< couxlsel for the parties. It is not in dispute th: the ACR of the petitioner f01 is apparent from respondeni " 1997 (Annexure A-4). MoreO‘ the repOIt, which has been ii the only operative reason promotion was the said ao March 1995. Respondents 1 Departmental Promotion Co eii‘ect that if in any of the awarded “3'” categoxy remark is apparent that the said ad‘ 1t an adverse remark was recorded in ’ the period ending March, 1995. This .s communication dated 21“ Januaiy, Ier, from the said communication and led by the respondents, it is clear that for holding the petitioner unfit for verse remark for the period ending rave also stated in their return that mmittee has adopted criteria to the 5 preceding years, any candidate is , he will not be promoted. From this it rerse remark had deleterious edect in so far as petitioner’s right of eing considered for promotion to the next higher post ofAssistant Learned counsel for t1". this Court Circular issued bt (Annexure A-13) dated 29 Authorities to properly com: Government servant. it. has raftsman is concerned. .e petitioner brought to the notice of I the G.A.D.’ of the State Government 11.1984 which also required the nunicate an adverse remark to the been stated that if the said remark is not communicated 11} t, it will loss it efhcacy. ime §W mzo Wmm (WE) ‘ anéermW swa'fwma mmifii‘wm amanémmia? , qp aiWanésr av? Viewed £rom any of the angle, the action of the respondents in holding the petitioner unfit for promotion on the basis of un— communicated adverse remark could not be sustained. It is therefore held that aciion of the respondents in holding petitioner uniitr for‘promotiOn was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the sConstitun'on of India. It was incumbent upon the respondents to communicate adverse remark to the petitioner, obtain his representation] explanation if any and place the same before the Departmental Promotion Committee for appropriate consideration. Consequently, the respondents are directed to communicate to the petitioner the said adverse remark for the period ending March; 1995 and consider his representation] explanation on the said adverse remark. If in case, the said adverse remark is expunged, respondents shall hold a Review Departmental Promotion Committee to reconsider the case of the peti‘u'oner as on the date his juniors were considered leading to issuance of order dated 4. 10.1996 (Annexure A- 1) and if found iit, grant him all the benefits of promotion, seniority and dxation of pay. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously without undue delay. \ The petition is accorc ingly allowed to the extent indicated S bove. ~ Sd/ {1 .Manindra Mobs—m Shrivastava i Judge No order as to costs. 5 W a