IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 1411 of 2012

DINESH SINGH BHAGHEL

Versus

STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Arun Dudawat - learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Jain -learned Government Advocate for

respondent/State.

ORDER training and passed two years' Diploma Course. After getting enrolled with the Pharmacy Council, petitioner became entitled for promotion to the post of Pharmacist Grade II w.e.f. 17.12.2008. It is further submitted that in the month of January, 2011, respondents prepared gradation list showing the seniority of all Dressers/Compounders Grade-I including petitioner in which the name of petitioner was placed at Sr.No.12. It is further submitted that as per provisions of rules prevailing, incumbent who had completed 5 years of services on the post of Dresser Grade-I, undergone training of Pharmacist and registered as Pharmacist by Pharmacy council, is entitled to and eligible for his further promotion on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II. Since petitioner who had completed the required services of 5 years, undergone training, passed two years' Diploma Course of Pharmacy and registered Pharmacist by M.P. State Pharmacy Council Bhopal, he is entitled and eligible for his promotion to the post of Pharmacist Grade-II w.e.f. 17.12.2008. It is further submitted that by annexure P/19 the representation of petitioner was rejected on the ground that a special Teep (ट(cid:2)प) was mentioned in the ACR and due to unsatisfactory Teep (ट(cid:2)प) the petitioner was not promoted. It is further submitted that petitioner has specifically pleaded in Para-5.15 of his petition that such note of unsatisfactory has never been communicated to petitioner; therefore, as per law it cannot be considered by DPC at the time of promotion. It is further submitted that aforesaid fact as regards non- communication of unsatisfactory teep (ट(cid:2)प) has not been denied by the respondents by filing their reply/ counter affidavit. It is further submitted that in para 6.5, petitioner has again specifically mentioned that special adverse remark has never been communicated to the petitioner and this fact has also not been denied by the respondents in their reply. It is further submitted that DPC cannot reject the case of petitioner on the basis of adverse remark which has not been communicated to petitioner.

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been

filed seeking following relief (s):-

"(i) Issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or direction thereby quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure P/19) thereby directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Pharmist grade II w.e.f.

17.12.2008 with all consequential benefits alongwith interest.

(ii) Passing any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

(iii) Costs of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is working on

the post of Dresser since 22.10.1986 without there being any single complaint against him. Thereafter, petitioner completed the Pharmacist

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State submits that as per prevailing rules, criteria prescribed by the DPC the ACR of petitioner was not found satisfactory; therefore, his claim was rejected and he was not promoted. It is further submitted that petitioner was not possessing the requisite benchmarks for promotion; therefore, he was rightly not granted promotion. Hence, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition.

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

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 de