IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 9 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 7779 of 2015 PARIMAL SINGH PRAJAPATI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Katare - Advocate with Ms. Ashi Gupta - learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri M.S. Jadon - learned Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by petitioner seeking following relief (s):-

"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;

(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to quash the DPC proceedings Annexure P/1 dated 27.11.2012 and further as per the admission of the respondents vide Annexure P/7 and as per the communication the review DPC proceedings may kindly be directed to be held and the case of the petitioner may kindly be considered in terms of that Rules, holding the field on 27.11.2012 and the petitioner may kindly be promoted on the post of Asstt. Director Sericulture since

27.11.2012 with all consequential benefits and seniority.

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

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Field Sericulture Officer and joined the said post on

31.01.1986. It is further submitted that DPC was held on 21.05.2012 / 27.11.2012, and the criteria adopted was merit-cum-seniority. The name of petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 and his marks were shown as 8 yet respondent No. 3-R.S. Ahirwar, who was junior to petitioner, was promoted. It is submitted that petitioner was illegally superseded. It is further submitted that petitioner was not communicated any adverse ACR by the respondents except for the year 2011– 2012. It is further submitted that the respondent authority considered the communicated ACR, and due to the non-communicated ACRs petitioner was not promoted. It is submitted that since the adverse/annual ACRs which affected the promotion of petitioner were never communicated to him, petitioner is entitled to promotion w.e.f. 21.05.2012 / 27.11.2012 in accordance with the settled position of law.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for petitioner and submitted that petitioner's case has been considered by the departmental promotion committee in its meeting dated 21.5.2012/27.11.2012. Petitioner's case was also under the zone of consideration, but last five years' ACRs have been evaluated in relation to petitioner from 2006 till 2011 and the same were not found fit and, therefore, after considering the petitioner's case, he was not found fit and hence could not come in the zone of consideration. It is further submitted that petitioner was not possessing the requisite bench marks for promotion; therefore, he was rightly not granted promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Sericulture. It is further submitted that since petitioner has obtained position as Grade ‘C’ in the ACR of the year 2006-07 and 2007-08, there was no necessity to communicate the said Grade ‘C’ to petitioner, as it does not amount to an adverse ACR. Hence, learned counsel, prays for dismissal of the present petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, junior to petitioner has been promoted with effect from

21.5.2012/ 27.11.2012 but the case of petitioner has not been considered by the concerned authority.

6. As per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 959, if the entry of adverse ACR has not been communicated to the delinquent, such non-communication would be arbitrary and as such is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same view has