IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 4693 of 2014 DINESH KUMAR PARASHAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Smrati Sharma – Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Yogesh Parashar – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been preferred seeking the following relief (s):

“1. That, impugned action or inaction on part of the respondents may kindly be held to be illegal and consequently the respondents be directed to issue promotion order in favour of the petitioner promoting him on the post of Assistant Engineer implementing the recommendations of departmental promotion committee made by it on 05.05.2012 w.e.f. from the due date of promotion or to other similarly situated persons along with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay etc.

2. The cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner.

3. Any other order or directions deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was holding the post of Sub-Engineer in Water Resources Division Shivpuri (M.P.). Vide order dated 22.08.2012 issued by respondent No.2 respondents granted third higher pay-scale (Kramonnati) to petitioner. On 05.05.2012, the departmental promotion committee constituted by the respondents for considering the case of incumbents for promotion from the post of Sub-Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer convened its meeting and after due consideration the said committee recommended the names of the various incumbents including the petitioner for promotion on the post of Sub-Engineer. The said committee recommended the case of the petitioner in circulation category and recommended 76 incumbents for promotion in general category and 19 candidates in circulation category and 19 remained in waiting list. Even though the concerned borrower department sent necessary details with regard to no enquiry, nо criminal case etc. is pending, in prescribed format on 8.5.2012, the respondents have not issued promotion order in favour of the petitioner, despite promoting 46 junior incumbents from the general category, circulation category and even waiting category by Annexure P/4, P/5 and P/6. When the respondents issued promotion orders of juniors withholding the promotion of petitioner, immediately the petitioner submitted representation dated 30.05.2012, 17.9.2013 and other various representations for issuing promotion order in his favour. Again, petitioner submitted representations dated 30.01.2014 and 02.08.2014. Thereafter, petitioner preferred the present petition. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has not received any adverse ACR, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of promotion from the date when his juniors have been promoted.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that when DPC was convened ACR of petitioner pertaining to the year 2009 was not available, therefore, his name was placed under the list of circulation as per recommendation and since the year 2013 DPC could not be convened, therefore, no further order could be passed. Thus, on these submissions, learned counsel for respondent/State prays for dismissal of instant petition.

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

5. As per reply filed by respondent/State, when DPC was convened, ACR of petitioner pertaining to the year 2009 was not available and petitioner was placed in the list of circulation as per recommendation. It is settled position that if the ACR of the concerned year is not available then the ACR of the preceding year must be considered for promotion.

6. Madhya Pradesh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2002 (in short “Rules, 2002”) deal with such a situation. Rule 6(6) of the Rules, 2002 reads as under:

“6. Promotion on the basis of se