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

th

ON THE 28 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 1555 of 2016 DR.MUKESH SAXENA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri K.K. Prajapati - learned Government Advocate for respondents/State.

Shri Vinay Kumar - learned counsel for respondent No.4.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

"7.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and call the record of the DPC held for the promotion to the post of lecturer before order Annexure P-1.

7.2 That, impugned order Annexure P-1, dated 30.11.2015 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

7.3 That, respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner for the promotion to the post of lecturer and they may further be directed to grant the promotion to the petitioner on the post of lecturer from a day earlier to the date of promotion of his juniors, private respondents with all consequential benefits.

7.4 That, any other relief, which Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioners along with costs. "

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially petitioner was appointed as Tabla Teacher vide order dated 26.9.1981. Thereafter, the post of petitioner was re-designated as Assistant Lecturer. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.9.2000 higher pay scale of Rs.1600-2900 was sanctioned to petitioner w.e.f. 29.9.1993. The order dated 15.9.2000 was issued as petitioner is entitled for upgradation on completion of 12 years service thereafter on completion of 24 years of service. Second financial upgradation was sanctioned vide order dated 15.10.2007 w.e.f. 30.9.2005. Thereafter, after acceptance of recommendation of 6th Pay Commission and in accordance with revised policy of the State Government the time scale of pay was sanctioned to petitioner on completion of 20 years of service w.e.f. 1.4.2006. Thereafter, third time scale of pay was sanctioned to petitioner on completion of 30 years of service w.e.f. 1.7.2014 vide order dated 27.11.2015. It is further submitted that in the gradation list of Assistant Lecturer published in the year 2013 the name of petitioner stood at serial No.9 whereas the names of private respondents appeared at serial No.12, 13 and 18. Private respondents were promoted vide order dated 30.11.2015 but petitioner was not promoted on the ground that he is not fulfilled the criteria prescribed by the DPC and on the basis of ACR which was prescribed by Departmental Promotion Committee. It is further submitted that no adverse ACR had been communicated to petitioner which affect the promotion of petitioner. It is further submitted that as per judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, even a "good" entry in ACR may be adverse if it makes an employee ineligible for promotion or has an adverse effect on his chance then the "good" entry in ACR must be communicated to delinquent as it affects the promotion.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner’s seniority does not confer any right to promotion and ACRs of petitioner were never satisfactory. He did not fulfill the criteria prescribed by the DPC. However, the adverse ACR graded as ‘D’ was not communicated to petitioner. It is further submitted that performance of petitioner was not satisfactory and his ACRs were not of the required standard for promotion. Learned counsel for respondents/State relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Lt. Gen Rajendra Singh Kadyan and Another (2000) AIR (SC) 2513 and submitted that on the basis of seniority, the promotion cannot be granted.

4. Heard learned counsel f