Surendra Babu Dwivedi vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order Annexure P-1 dated 18.10.2004 whereby respondent No. 3, junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar from the post of Revenue Inspector. Shri Raghuvanshi submits that the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-fitness and petitioner is admittedly senior to the private respondent herein. He submits that the respondent No. 3 has taken a stand that the petitioner could not secure requisite marks and could not touch the bench mark to become eligible and, therefore, the petitioner was not considered. Assailing this stand, Shri Raghuvanshi submits that it is specifically pleaded and not denied by the respondents that for the period in question which was considered by the D.P.C., the A.C.Rs. were not communicated to the petitioner. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , it is stated that the respondents are bound to communicate all the relevant A.C.Rs. to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the other side has not refuted the aforesaid legal position.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There is no dispute between the parties that the relevant A.C.Rs. which were taken into account by the D.P.C. were not communicated to the petitioner. The Apex Court in Dev Dutt (supra) opined that every A.C.Rs. are required to be communicated to the petitioner. It is held that there is no statutory definition of "adverse C.R.". Thus, any ACR which has an adverse potential and can adversely affect the carrier of an employee is an adverse ACR. It was opined that the A.C.Rs. which are good and above are also required to be communicated.

A Division Bench in W.A. No. 452/2010 (Ramgopal Verma Vs. State of M.P.) has also followed the said judgment and the benches of this Court has consistently followed the ratio decidendi in Dev Dutt (supra). In the light of aforesaid, I deem it proper to dispose of this petition in the light of ratio in Dev Dutt (supra) with the following directions:-

(i) The respondents shall communicate all the C.Rs. to the petitioner which were taken into consideration by the D.P.C. within 60 days.

(ii) The petitioner, in turn, shall submit his detailed representation against those A.C.Rs. within 30 days therefrom.

(iii) The respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner against those A.C.Rs. promptly and take a final decision in accordance with law.

(iv) If the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner are toned down and the ultimate result brings him within the zone of consideration/he touches the bench mark, a review D.P.C. be convened and constituted forthwith to consider the case of the petitioner.

(v) After considering the case in review D.P.C., proper orders be passed and communicated to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.