Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Arora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27156
1 WP-7967-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7967 of 2021
JAGDISH ARORA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Prashant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Shrivastava - PL for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a direction
to the respondents to convened DPC in accordance with M.P. Public
Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002 from the date the petitioner became
eligible for promotion on the post of Assistant Commissioner and further on
the post of Deputy Commissioner.
2. Notices were issued to the respondents on 15.06.2021, however,
despite grant of sufficient time, the reply is not filed by the respondents.
Therefore, the arguments of learned counsel for the parties are heard based
upon the record available.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk on
07.07.1984 in the respondent - Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. He was later
on promoted on the post of Property Tax Officer and further on the post of
Assistant Revenue Officer on 07.07.1998. He claims that he became eligible
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27156
2 WP-7967-2021
for promotion on the post of Assistant Commissioner (Property Tax) on
02.07.2006 on completion of eight years of service as Assistant Revenue
Officer and further for promotion on the post of Deputy Commissioner on
02.07.2011. He further submitted that even though the posts are available in
the Corporation, the DPC was not convened as a result of which, he was
deprived for the aforesaid post.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced aforesaid arguments
and also submitted that under the Promotion Rules of 2002, the respondent -
Corporation is statutorily liable to convene DPC every year. It is his
submission despite availability of post and the petitioner being eligible for
promotion, the DPC was not convened. He referred to the documents filed
alongwith the writ petition to say that the petitioner has been ventilating his
grievance time and again before the respondent authority and also before this
Court and necessary directions were issued to the respondent - Corporation
for consideration of petitioner's claim. However, DPC was not convened and
the petitioner is deprived of fruits of promotional post.
5. No body appeared for respondent no.2.
6. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the
petitioner has no right of promotion and no mandamus can be issued to the
employer to convene DPC. It is for the employer to decide when to fill up the
post by way of promotion.
7. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
8. This is settled legal position that filling up the post by way of
promotion or by way of direct recruitment is the choice of the employer and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27156
3 WP-7967-2021
no direction can be issued to employer in this regard. No employee can claim
to be appointed/promoted on a particular post from a particular date unless
any person junior to him or atleast at par with him has been
appointed/promoted. Merely because the petitioner acquired eligibility to be
considered for promotion, would not be a ground to direct respondents to
conduct DPC. So far as the provision of Promotion Rules of 2002 are
concerned, the similar provision has been held to be not mandatory by a
Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Singh & another vs. State of M.P. &
ors. reported in 2007(1) MPLJ 319. This Court held in para 12 as under:
"12. It may be seen in the present case that learned counsel for the
respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
(1977) 1 SCC 606 : AIR 1977 SC 757, Union of India v. Majji
Jangamayya and submitted that it is for the competent authority to
decide as to when the vacancies are to be filled up by way of
promotion. A candidate has no right to be promoted on a higher
post as and when vacancies arises. The State Government has a
right to keep the vacancies unfilled as long as he chose. On the
basis of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Majji
Jangamayya (supra), it is thus apparent that merely because
vacancies have arisen, the State Government cannot be compelled
to fill up the said vacancies as soon as vacancies occurred. The
State Government has to exercise its discretion as to when the
vacancies as such have to be filled up. The ratio of the judgment is
squarely applicable in the present case and it is held that rule of
holding the DPC every year to regulate promotion to the post of
Head Constables (GD) is not a mandatory and it depends upon
various circumstances and the rule as such does not stipulate any
consequences of not following the same i.e. not filling up the
vacancies every year. Therefore, the rule as such is not mandatory.
Thus, even though the State Government has not proceeded to fill
up the vacancies of Head Constables (GD) as soon as it has arisen
by holding the annual DPC yet no fault can be found of the State
Government merely because the persons those who were applied
have already crossed their age of 40 years."
9. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27156
4 WP-7967-2021
the employer was required to convene the DPC every year, is not acceptable.
10. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of his junior is
considered and granted promotion. It is seen from the cause title of the writ
petition that when the writ petition was filed, the petitioner was already aged
about 62 years. Meaning thereby, he was at the verge of retirement. Thus,
after having retired from service, no mandamus can be issued to respondent
no.2 to convene DPC and grant promotion to the petitioner with
retrospective effect.
11. Further, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, respondent
no.2 passed the order dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure P/2), wherein the
petitioner claimed for promotion on the post of Deputy Commissioner was
considered and was declined. The said order appears to have not been
challenged by the petitioner.
12. Considering the aforesaid, particularly in view of the fact that the
petitioner has already retired from service, no mandamus can be issued to
respondent no.2 to convene DPC, in view of the law laid by this Court in the
case of Anil Singh (supra). Consequently, no indulgence can be shown in
favour of the petitioner in the instant writ petition. Resultantly, the petition
fails and is dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
