The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benchmark fixed by the DPC for promotions must be reasonable and in line with the criterion of 'seniority-cum-fitness', and the comparative merits of the candidates cannot be examined under this criterion.

Sujoy Paul, J.

In these batch of petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is common. They are aggrieved by order dated 15.07.2005 whereby their juniors/private respondents are promoted on the post of Account Officer/Estate Officer.

2. The petitioners contended that they were working as Branch Officer/Estate Manager. The gradation list showing position as on 1.1.2001 (Annexure P/4) shows that petitioners are senior to private respondents. The names of petitioners find place at No. 4, 5, 7 and 8 whereas the names of private respondents are at No.9,12 and 13. The reliance is placed on another gradation list showing position as on 1.4.2005 (Annexure P/5) wherein petitioners names are mentioned at No.1,2,3 and 4 whereas private respondents are at Nos. 5, 6, and 7.

3. Shri S.P. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that promotion in question is to be made by applying provisions of M.P. Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Promotion Rules). It is submitted that as per rule 2(f), the respondent/Board is covered under the definition of "Establishment". The promotion in question is from class-II to Class-I post and, therefore, as per rule 4(1), the criterion is "seniority subject to fitness". Shri Rai relied on Rules 6(5) and (7) of Promotion Rules to contend that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) should have applied the criterion of "Seniority subject to fitness" and there was no question of making comparative assessment of merits or fixing benchmark for the candidates. By taking this court to DPC proceedings filed with the rejoinder, it is urged that the DPC, in fact, applied the criterion of "merit cum seniority". It is urged that DPC, in fact, considered the comparative merits of the candidates which is impermissible as per promotion rules. In support of aforesaid contention, Shri Rai relied on Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India-(2009) 16 SCC 146, Haryana State Warehousing Corporation v. Jagat Ram-(2011) 3 SCC 422, Ram Bharose Kamal v. State of M.P. and others-(2012)3 MPLJ 464 and D.P. Sharma v. State of M.P and others-ILR 2015 MP 852.

4. Per contra Shri Gourav Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. He submitted that petitioners have already retired from service. He relied on various paragraphs of the return.

5. The respondents have relied on the same promotion rules. The respondents have vehemently denied that promotions from Class-II to Class-I posts have been made in violation of the promotion rules. It is admitted that candidates were placed before DPC for consideration as per seniority. The DPC fixed the norms of selection in consonance with the criterion of "seniority subject to fitness". It is also denied that DPC has only considered merit and ignored the seniority. The respondents have not doubted the genuineness of the DPC proceedings filed by the petitioner along with the rejoinder.

6. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

7. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

8. The record shows that DPC was convened on 16.6.2005 for the aforesaid promotional posts. Clause (1) of the proceedings shows that promotion rules of 2002 were made applicable and criterion for promotion was "seniority subject to fitness".

For the purpose of seniority, the seniority list showing the position as on 1.4.2004 became the basis. No zone of consideration/limit was made by the DPC. In Clause (7) following findings is given :-

7- inksUufr dh dlkSfV;ka rFkk lkeku; iz'kklu foHkkx ds fu;e e/; izns'k flfoy lsok inksUufr;ksa esa vkj{k.k] fopkj {ks= ds foLrkj dh lhek,a 2002 ds lanHkZ esa oxhZdj.k%

v& U;wure dlkSVh%

lfefr us fopkjk/khu inksUufr ds fy;s fuEufyf[kr dlkSfV;ka r; dh%&

¼1½ lafu"Bk lansg ls ijs gks ,oa lfu"Bk izekf.kr gksA

¼2½ ikap o"kksZa ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa ds vk/kkj ij lfefr }kjk fd;k lexz ewY;kadu dk vk/kkj