ASHOK KUMAR DUBEY Vs. MADHYA PRADESH AUDHYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed to quash the promotion of Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 06.7.1996 filed as Annexure P-6 with a direction to the concerned Respondents to constitute a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) and issue proper direction to the D.P.C. on the criteria for promotion.

(2.) The brief facts are that the Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 26.3.1982. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 08.1.1990. Prior to the alleged D.P.C. he had completed 5 years service on the post of Assistant Engineer as statutorily required for consideration to the next higher post. The next higher post is the post of Deputy Project Engineer. In the D.P.C, the case of the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 both were considered and ultimately on the recommendations of the D.P.C. Respondent No. 2 was promoted vide order dated 06.7.1996 which has been impugned in this writ petition. The rules applicable in case of the Petitioner are The Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Maryadit Karmachari Sewa Niyam 1994-1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit. It is the case of the Petitioner himself that the Respondent No. 2 was senior to him as his name comes at Serial No. 2 and the name of the Petitioner comes at Serial No. 3 of the gradation list published on 01.04.1995 filed as Annexure P-2.

(3.) The Petitioner challenges the promotion of Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the services of Respondent No. 2 were not satisfactory as prior to 1984, the Respondent No. 2 was imposed with the penalty of withholding of increment for one year and thereafter again a departmental enquiry was instituted against him and in the said enquiry he was imposed with penalty of warning. Raising these two points only, the contention of learned senior counsel for the Petitioner was that in the above facts and circumstances, Respondent No. 2 could not have been promoted as compared to the Petitioner who has not been imposed with any penalty and no adverse remarks have been made against him. The overall submission was that between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner was a better candidate and he should have been recommended for promotion superseding the case of Respondent No. 2 by the D.P.C. About jurisdiction and scope of interference, Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Ors. : AIR 2000 S.C. 3243.