SURENDRA BABU DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 and others), reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, it is stated that the respondents are bound to communicate all the relevant A.C.Rs. to the petitioner.

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