Bherulal Mali vs Secretary The State Of Madhya ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9619 MP

                                                                 1
                           IN       THE       HIGH        COURT OF MADHYA                           PRADESH
                                                            AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                     ON THE 26 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 12665 of 2010

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BHERULAL MALI S/O BHAWARLAL, AGED ABOUT 49
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE MJR 74, NEW INDIRA
                           NAGAR BEHIND THE WATER TANK NEEMUCH
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI ABHISHEK TUGNAWAT - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.      SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                   AND 03 ORS. GOVT. MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDU.
                                   VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.      ADDL.   DIRECTOR    HIGHER   EDUCATION
                                   DEPARTMENT GIRLS P.G COLLEGE CAMPUS
                                   MOTI TABELA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.      PRINCIPAL  GOVERNMENT                PG     COLLEGE
                                   (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.      SHOKAT ALI KHAN S/O SHRI MASUM ALI KHAN
                                   LAB ATTENDANT R.V MAHAVIDYALAYA,MANASA
                                   (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                            (SHRI MUKESH PARWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
                                                                   ORDER

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.03.2003 passed by respondent no.2, whereby, the respondent no.4 who is junior to the petitioner

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 26/06/2023 5:32:19 PM

has been promoted on the post of Laboratory Technician and also challenging the order dated 06.11.2007, whereby, the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Laboratory Technician with delay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not considered for promotion alongwith respondent no.4 because of non- communication of the adverse ACR. He submits that the non-communication of adverse ACR cannot be a basis for denial of promotion. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in AIR 1979 SC 1622, (1996) 2 SCC 363, 2007 (1) MPJT 2021, (2009) 16 SCC 146 and also the judgments passed by the co-ordinate bench of this

Court in Havildar Gambhir Singh Chahar Vs. Union of India and Ors reported in 2007 (2) MPHT 238, wherein it has been held that in the case of non-communication that remark has to be eschewed from consideration when directing reconsideration of his case for promotion.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the petitioner may submit a fresh representation alongwith relevant record and judgments on which he proposes to rely his representation for promotion from the date and the respondent no.4 shall consider the same in the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority alongwith relevant record and judgment on which he proposes to rely within the period of one month from today and the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner keeping in view the circular and the judgment relied by the petitioner within the period of two months thereafter, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no.4 by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 26/06/2023 5:32:19 PM

passing a speaking and reasoned order.

5. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed off.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

Sourabh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 26/06/2023 5:32:19 PM