ORDER

With consent, heard finally.

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under\ Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :--

“(i) To call for whole record of the respondents in connection with the promotions of the respondent No.8 & petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) To quash the Annexure P-1, 2, 3 & 4 order dated 4.6.2008, 11.4.2008 & 18.3.2010 and cancel the promotion order of respondent No.8 illegally passed by the Respondent No.1 to 7. and promotion of the petitioner of the petitioner may be approved as per law on the post of Head Clerk/Head Accountant.

(iii) To direct respondents No.1 to7 for issuing promotion order of the petitioner on the post of Head Accountant as per seniority list.

(iv) Any other Writ/relief for which the petitioner be may kindly be granted this Hon’ble Court.”

2. Precisely stated, facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on 12.2.1986 on the post of Cashier (Assistant Grade-III) in office of Municipality, Raisen (respondent No.6 herein). Respondent No.8 (private respondent) was appointed on 12.9.1995 on the post of (Assistant Grade-III). In April 2000, service of petitioner was attached with the office of District Urban Development Authority (Project), Raisen (respondent No.4 & 7 herein) with the consent of Municipality, Raisen. In the seniority list of Assistant Grade-III, which was prepared by respondent No.6, name of the petitioner stands on top of the list at serial No.1 and the name of respondent No.8 stands at serial No.2 as per seniority.

3. On 29.10.2007, President-in-Council passed a resolution for filling up the vacant post of Head Clerk/Head Accountant through promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-III. District Selection Committee was constituted with three members at the helm. Deputy Director, Urban Administration, Bhopal Division (respondent No.3 herein) was the Chairman of the Committee. On 11.04.2008, Selection Committee selected respondent No.8 for promotion on the post of Head Clerk/Head Accountant in place of petitioner as per rule 12 of the M. P. Municipal Employees Recruitment and Service Conduct Rules, 1968 [hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1968” for brevity] and as per rule 3 of the M. P. Municipal Services (Scale of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1967 [hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1967” for brevity].

4. Being crestfallen by the said decision, petitioner filed an objection on 13.6.2008 before the Chief Municipality Officer, Raisen about alleged injustice perpetrated over him because respondent No.8 was promoted whereas he was 10 years junior to him.

5. It appears that petitioner filed a representation/appeal to Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development (respondent No.2 herein) on 24.6.2008, but since no affirmative steps were taken, therefore, he preferred a writ petition vide W.P. No.10512/2008 in which certain directions were given to the respondents vide order dated 25.9.2008 for consideration of his representation.

6. On 5.11.2009, Commissioner considered the matter and remanded back the case for reconsideration of the promotion of petitioner before the District Promotion Committee. On 18.3.2010, Promotion Committee passed the order as per direction of the Court as well as Commissioner and affirmed the previous promotion order of respondent No.8. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.

7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that between the year 2000 to 2008 when the petitioner was on deputation at District Urban Administration and Development Department and therefore, reporting/accepting and approving authority of petitioner were of District Urban Administration Department and not from Mincipality. Petitioner received A+ in last five years ACRs which were considered for promotion. Therefore, it is not the case where petitioner was less meritorious than respondent No.8.

8. Sheet anchor of the case of petitioner is that as per rule 4 of M.P. Public Se