Dr. Ramesh Chandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10265 MP

                                                         1
                                       IN   THE    HIGH        COURT OF          MADHYA
                                                              PRADESH
                                                             AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                 ON THE 6th of JULY, 2023
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 5153 of 2015

                                  BETWEEN:-
                                  DR. RAMESH CHANDRA S/O SHRI PAHAD
                                  SINGH MUVEL OCCUPATION: DOCTOR 237,
                                  MIG COLONY -II DENDAYAL PURAM, DHAR
                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    ....PETITIONER
                                  (SHRI MANOJ MANAV, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

                                  AND
                                  1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY    MEDICAL
                                        EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                                        BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  2.    THE DIRECTOR THROUGH STATE OF
                                        MADHYA    PRADESH    HEMEOPATH
                                        MEDICAL    EDUCATION    SATPURA
                                        BHAWAN,BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  3.    THE    GOVT. HOMEOPATH HOSPITAL
                                        DISTT.OFFICER,DHAR     (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                  4.    DR. VASUDEV ASALKAR,         AYURVED
                                        OFFICER KHARGONE
                                        DISTRICT   KHARGONE          (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                                   (SHRI MUKESH PARWAL - G.A. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO
                                   3/STATE)
                                   (NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 THOUGH SERVED)


                                  This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 06-Jul-23 5:53:42
PM
                                                            2
                                  following:

                                                                 ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the supersession from the post of Ayurved Medical Officer to District Ayush Officer.

2. Facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Ayush Officer on 20.06.2008. In the gradation list for the post of Ayurvedic Officer his name was at S.No. 448 whereas the name of respondent No.4 finds place at S.No.449. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has been promoted to the post of District Ayush Officer ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner was senior

to respondent No.4. The respondents filed the reply and submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered along with respondent No.4 in the DPC and the criteria for promotion was seniority-cum- suitability and on evaluation of ACR, the respondent No.4 was found more meritorious and therefore, the petitioner was not promoted. In the rejoinder, the petitioner made specific averment in para No.3 that the A.C.Rs. from the year 2008 to 2014 were not communicated to him and he was not given any opportunity to represent against those A.C.Rs. which had adversely affected him.

3. Upon perusal of evaluation chart, it is evident that from the year 2008-2014, the petitioner was graded as Kha(good). The aforesaid grading - Good for all the relevant years has adversely affected and prejudiced his case for promotion as they have been treated to be adverse by the respondents. The aforesaid A.C.Rs. have not been communicated to him and therefore, he is entitled for promotion. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 06-Jul-23 5:53:42 PM

passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal Vs. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission and others, (2015) 14 SCC 427 wherein it has been held that if the entries are of 'Good' grading but they have adversely affected the promotion of the petitioner, those entries ought to have communicated to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the said case has relied upon the law laid down in the previous judgment in the matter of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 wherein it was held that the entries which are graded as Good and has effected consideration for promotion to the higher post has to be communicated to the employee so that he can submit a representation against those entries. The Apex Court has also referred the judgment in the case of Abhijeet Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 146.

4. There is no additional reply by the State on record to show that relevant A.C.Rs. were communicated to the petitioner. The matter is pending since 2015. Considering the same, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a detail and comprehensive representation before the competent authority along with the relevant record, rules and circulars and the judgment passed by various Courts within one month from today and if such a representation is submitted,

the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority within 2 months by considering the relevant record, rules, circulars and the judgment passed in various cases by the Courts by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.4.

C.c. as per rules.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 06-Jul-23 5:53:42 PM

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 06-Jul-23 5:53:42 PM