BRAJESH SHARAN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that though he was considered for promotion on the post of Joint Registrar Co -operative Societies, but instead of promoting the petitioner, certain persons have been promoted and the claim of the petitioner is not considered properly. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected, therefore, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies on 29 -4 -1988. The petitioner joined the services on 2 -6 -1988. On account of meritorious services, the petitioner was considered for promotion timely and was promoted on the post of Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies vide order dated 30 -10 -1995. The services of the petitioner are governed by the Rules known as M.P. Sahkari Seva Bharti Niyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short). According to the Schedule appended to the Rules, on completion of three years of minimum services as Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies, the petitioner became eligible to be considered for promotion on the post of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Proper seniority of the petitioner was fixed and a gradation seniority list was circulated.

(3.) REFUTING the allegations made by the petitioner, the respondent -State has filed a return and has contended that the DPC meeting was rightly conducted strictly in terms of the Promotion Rules. Since the vacancies were available on the post of Joint Registrar, Co -operative Societies, a meeting of the DPC was held on 26 -12 -2005. The petitioner was also in the zone of consideration and, therefore, his name was included in the said list. The Committee evolved the criterias strictly in terms of the provisions of the Promotion Rules and after examining the cases of each and every officer, reached to the conclusion that none of the officers were to be put in the outstanding category as there was improper grading done in the ACRs of the officers. The official respondent has further contended that since unjustified gradings were done in the ACRs by the official concerned, the DPC took up the matter modified the gradings in respect of all officers and strictly making the assessment on the basis of ACRs, prepared the list of suitable officers to be promoted on the post of joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. According to the seniority, since the name of the petitioner was not reached within the vacancies available, the order of promotion was not issued in his respect. However, only the seniors to the petitioner have been promoted and none of the junior has been promoted superseding the claim of the petitioner. In view of this, it is contended that the order impugned has rightly been issued, the representation of the petitioner has rightly been rejected and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The M.P. Public Service Commission, the respondent No. 3, has also contended in the same manner and has said that the consideration was done in appropriate manner and no wrong was committed.