ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed;

(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector at par with his Juniors respondent No.6 and 7 with all consequential benefits including seniority to the petitioner of the Post of Assistant Sub Inspector prior to his Juniors at serial No.44 Arun Kumar respondent No.6 and 7 in the.

(iii) That, petitioner be also granted back wages from the date his juniors respondent No. 6 and 7 were promoted of the post of ASI.

(iv) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioners.”

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Constable on 12.1.1998 and due to bravery he received out of turn promotion and promoted to the post of Head Constable on 26.9.2009. Thereafter petitioner has been served with a charge-sheet and after departmental enquiry he was inflicted with punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect on 22.1.2014. Petitioner appealed against the said punishment order and the appellate Court vide its order dated 31.8.2019 turned down the said punishment order.

3. During currency of punishment order, respondents department conducted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and promoted Head Constables (juniors to the petitioner i.e. respondents No.6 &7) to the post of Assistant Sub Inspectors. Since punishment order of petitioner was set aside therefore, petitioner is entitled to be promoted on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector.

4. It is further submitted that as per rule 6(4) of he M.P. Public Services (Promotion) rules, 2002, meeting of DPC shall be held every year. DPC shall consider the suitability of public servant for promotion separately with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onward.

5. Since respondents without any legitimate reason have failed to constitute DPC according to rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2002 therefore, it is effective and statutory right of petitioner. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.13241/2017 (Dhirendra Chaturvedi v. State of M.P.) decided on 16.4.2019 as well as the order dated 9.3.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.14029/2020 (Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr.). He seeks direction for consideration over his promotion.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions and submitted that respondents shall proceed as per law.

7. Heard.

8. This is a case where it appears that petitioner as a member of unreserved category is seeking promotion on unreserved category's post of Assistant Sub Inspector as juniors to him have been promoted and he has been left just because of punishment order inflicted on him, which was later on set aside by the appellate authority itself.

9. In the case of Dheerendra Chaturvedi (supra) and Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra), this Court has considered the impact of judgment of R.B. Rai v. State of M.P., 2016 SCC Online MP 747 as well as pending SLP No.13954/2016 at the instance of State of Madhya Pradesh and thereafter issued certain directions to the authorities to convene DPC in respect of those petitioners. The order passed in Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra) is confirmed by the Division Bench at Gwalior Bench in Writ Appeal No.790/2022 and SLP (Civil) No.22793/2022 is pending before the Supreme Court.

10. In the conspectus of things, it is apposite that this petition be also disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to place the certified copy of this order along with his representation, if advised so before the competent authority/respondent and on placing such documents along with certifie