^ rSt 'v&^t- t~ ^ /vo...^2>^ ^•s^^r^- tt^r^ byShri^^ '-s^-. fcr R^.^^ A?.P.S^^, ':' f t^-^(^) "v^^ ^m iTT^^S} ^^ TTi^ p?r?rt^$ aTEF^ .-;—-. ^ft^ - TTO^ |3?*9'*S MT^ HTd |i?TT cn-?N fiTcrr Tg« ^ift^rq ITP-N ^ 48^, gTNT-^^ $T T=t^^, ^t^T, ^Sr^ei ^TTIT, T^T - ^ti^T ^*9'* S T^eiRr^T ^^ a^T^^w ;- T^¥% 1 2- ?i6;g ^ ^T^f ^T^-T ^^ ifxR, ^"i T^iTy^$ $T T^^Rr, ^1189, gT^si m^T, ^iNr^ j ^•^'j ST^yd t9^?? $T N^in ^T?3T%?I T^q ^T SIT^^ W^tf j ^•^j ^^ m r?9^ e»TTT 19 ^^9 TTff?} ^mmt^i 3{T&R^ •««,<•<•«««•^»-—• «,««..^^. aW?rai? 1995 T :C-22 sn^i^T ^i.ch ^Ti^? 5b^icb "^^ ^sr ^iFTf^f. ^frOT^. f®i<ni^ll< 371^" 'q^T ,..!A!.£a2.2.cTrj./^^ ^^ST' ^ WW^T^W^ 200 ^TI^T'^RTTWHf^f SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra MoUan Shriyastava, J. 16.03.2010 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verm Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Law^er Grievance of the petitione^ order dated 25.9.1998(Annexuiic Sr. No. 94 to 104 in the grad|ati promoted, but the petitioner supersession. Contention of learned courlsel adverse remark was communic^ted respect of the period ending Mar4h, said adverse remark was exp^inged (Annexure A-3) and petitioner wa^ Dep|artmental Learned counsel for the p^1 ACRs which were subject matter| case for promotion by the short "the D.P.C.") convened on basis to withhold petitioner's prJDmotion the criteria for promotion was s^i there being any adverse mat^rial, promoted. <=hl<4td<>flv1 'W^t ^ ^S <f^<^l< ^^Tf^R-ST^T counsel for the petitioner. for the State/respondent No.l. as setout in the petition is that vide A-l), junior Inspectors shown from ation list (Annexure A-2) have been kvas not promoted resulting in his for the petitioner is that earlier an to the petitioner in his ACR in ., 1994. On representation made, the vide order dated 22.2.1994 graded as 'Good'. ^titioner submits that all the relevant |of consideration while considering his Promotion Committee (for -.8.1998 were good and there was no L. He further submits that as miority-cum-merit, in the absence of petitioner was entitled to be ['T^ -^T^ l-HC-22 h9^^r- 3?n^?r'^i h^ wi^i 9^H\<^ Tifi^i 1N»NNNltt|Ni| ^"^r ^i^td^i, ^y4i(o, f^Kni^i^ 37?i^ 'cRr^ 1RINdl ^^j^*——•'*••••—*•*•—"""^F^ 200 'f3R^8T' ^niRT'^RITW^f^T _ ' couifisel Per contra, learned petitioner has no indefeasible ri^ officers junior to the petitioner seek command that he should the D.P.C. which was convened of the petitioner and on the basis not found fit and therefore he for the State submits that the ^ht to be promoted and merely because phias been promoted, petitioner cannot ^lso be promoted. It is contended that |on 4.8.1998, had considered the case of criteria adopted, the petitioner was not promoted. wals I have heard learned coi^nsel for the parties and perused the record. b^ From the return filed revealed as to on what basis It has not been disputed that relevant ACR v^iich was considering petitioner's case disputed that adverse entiy respect of the period ending vide order dated 22.2.1995 (Ann( disclosed before the Court as to i the petitioner was not found fit In view of the above, it is cl was arbitrary without any reaso^i that respondent No.l/State of of the petitioner for grant of cbl^id4lr1 ^ll^^'^f^t iPsi-^K ^3:rf^TR3TT^rT the respondents, no reasons are pet|tioner was not found fit for promotion. Ithere were no adverse entries in the suljyect matter of consideration while f(|>r promotion. It has also not been recj^rded in the ACR of the petitioner in Ma|rch 1994 was subsequently expunged \nn^xure A-3). Respondents have also not ^(vhat was the criteria adopted and how f(j>r promotion on the said criteria. ^ear that supersession of the petitioner and basis. Accordingly, it is directed Qhhattisgarh shall reconsider the case [promotion to the post of Assistant |-:nr^ -^-f5,?~j y^.. 1i!^ -,. J / ^^••-^' 3T^T^I 'f^n^sTi^r ^^N-^firr ^ Praveen INMNINIUI ^o? ^i^sd^, ~^'-d^ji<o, 1^'^rray ^T^ W^l^lfWNgc^ 'M 200 •l^^sr' 3TT^T'^RH^H: ^rftn 5- Commercial Tax Officer as oni the petitioner were promoted^. considered strictly in accord^ consideration the adverse A petitioner and further treatirjg 'Good', as stated in the order event petitioner is found fit f(| petitioner shall be entitled to also notional fbcation of pay, ex^ 14.8.1998 when the Inspectorjuniors to The case of the petitioner would be ^nce with law and without taking into ^mark earlier communicated to the the ACR during period 1993-94 as jdated 22.2.1995 (AnnexureA-3). In the ^r promotion after due reconsideration, jgrant of promotion from due date and :ept arrears of pay. Petition is accordingly alljowed No order as to costs. ^l^id^l'1 TTR^f ^ 'fe^ ^fe^K iT37f^Ra?TT^T ' Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude [^ '^\r\