DPC holds prerogative to independently classify officers as 'Unfit' based on overall service record assessment, not bound by ACR gradings.

O R D E R

By Ms. Mallika Arya, AM Through this OA the applicant has prayed that official respondents should be directed to hold the Review DPC in respect of the State Civil Services of Madhya Pradesh for promotion to IAS for the vacancy year 2008 and 2009. The name of the applicant should be included in the impugned order dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure A/1) over and above Respondent No. 4 alongwith all consequential benefits.

2. The applicant was working as Additional Collector at Shivpuri (MP). He was initially appointed as Deputy Collector on 01.11.1985 in the Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services. The applicant has a clean record in service. Hence he cannot be denied induction into IAS. The DPC was held on 23.06.2006 by the respondents wherein the officers of the State Cadre of Madhya Pradesh were considered for IAS for the vacancy year 2007 and 2008. The applicant was illegally superseded in the said DPC. The applicant filed an OA No. 736/2008 before this Tribunal, which is still pending adjudication. The record of the DPC was called by this Tribunal for effective disposal of the OA. During the pendency of the OA the respondents conducted the Screening Committee meeting on 11.07.2011 and thereafter issued notification No. 1 14015/13/2009-AIS (I)-A, New Delhi dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure A/1). A copy of the same has been procured by the applicant under RTI (Annexure A/2). The applicant was shocked to see that his name did not figure in the said notification. However, Respondent No. 4 who figured at Sl. No. 70 in the gradation list of the State Administrative Service (SAS) officers as on 01.04.2007 i.e. below the applicant was present. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2010 in MA No. 986/2010 filed alongwith OA No. 736/2008 directed the respondent authorities to consider the grievance of the applicant (Annexure A/5).

3. The applicant made a representation dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure A/6) to the respondent authorities. In a very sketchy manner it has been mentioned that the representation of the officer and the comments of the State Government were brought to the notice of the Selection Committee. The respondent authorities did not consider the representation dated 16.11.2010 independently. His ACR for the year 2004-2005 and 2005-06 were written maliciously and he was downgraded. Due to the biased attitude of Respondent No. 1 a fair assessment of the performance of the applicant has not been carried out. The applicant was graded „Good‟ in the year 2007 and graded as „Unfit‟ for the year 2008. Although the DPC met three times for the vacancies arising for the year 2008 and 2009 i.e. on 09.07.2010, 15.10.2010 and 29.11.2010, the final list was published on 11.07.2011 (Annexure A/1). At no point of time was the applicant communicated any adverse ACRs. There are various landmark judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that any un-communicated ACR cannot be taken into consideration for denial of promotion. The applicant has alleged that Respondent No. 1 and 2 had illegal expectation from the applicant to fill the vacancies of Assistant Grade 2 ignoring he reservation for „disabled person‟, backlog of the SC and ST candidates etc. The applicant made a complaint against the reporting officer for harassing him on 14.07.2008 (Annexure A/8) before the National Commission for Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes. Respondent No. 1 vide letter No. 104/83/2008/-ADV1, New Delhi dated 19.08.2008 (Annexure A/9) (NCSC & ST) wrote to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh to furnish a factual report. Howeve