ROHIT ARYA
MEENA MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
ORDER : – Shri Gaurav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A. S. Sisodiya, learned Panel lawyer for the respondent-State.
With the consent of parties, heard finally.
Petitioner while serving as Joint Collector w.e.f 13-4-2006 reached the age of superannuation on 30-6-2014. She is aggrieved by the improper consideration of her case for award of selection grade, though, she had completed requisite years of service i.e. 05 years preceding to the date of DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) i.e. 27-6-2013 and 10-7-2013.
2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, ACR grading of the petitioner for the years 2008-2012 are as under : –
| 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 |
| d | d | [k | [k | [k |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benchmark fixed by the DPC was 12 marks. Petitioner fulfilled the criteria. However, she was denied selection grade for the reason that the DPC while considering her case has taken into consideration the ACR of the year 2007 instead of 2011 along with ACRs of the years 2012, 2010, 2009,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.