IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 15482 of 2007 PUNAU RAM CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal Senior Advocate assisted with Shri Aditya Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Aishwarya Singh Dy. G.A. appeared for respondent.

ORDER This petition has been filed while praying for the following reliefs:

"1) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing 3 and clause 9 of GOP No.75/97 (Annexure-P/3) so far as it prescribes for passing of fresh cadre examination by a constable who has received major penalty after his selection by selection committee but before his promotion and disqualifies an individual for promotion if he has received a major penalty during preceding five years.

II) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Head Constable on the basis of the promotion cadre examination passed by him during the year 1998 with all consequential benefits; or III) Alternatively direct the respondents to relax the upper age limit in respect of the petitioner and permit him to appear in the next promotion cadre examination for promotion to the post of Head Constable.

IV) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case including the cost of petition."

2. Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a case where the petitioner's case was required to be considered for promotion in terms of GOP bearing No.75/97 dated 27/03/1997 contained in Annexure P/3 which contains provisions for promotion from the post of Constable to the post of Head Constable. It is contended by the Senior Counsel that the petitioner's candidature was to be considered within the 70% of vacancies which were meant for the candidates of the department. However, Clause 3(A) of the GOP as inserted, stipulated that the candidate should not have been confronted with any major punishment in last five years and the number of minor penalties in last five years, should be less than the rewards granted to the candidate.

3. In the case in hand, the present petitioner was confronted with an order of penalty of reduction to minimum pay scale for a period of 5 years vide order dated 03/05/2002. On account of the said order, the claim of the petitioner despite qualifying the examination, was rejected vide communication dated 15/07/2002 (Annexure P/5). However, after issuance of communication dated 15/07/2002 (Annexure P/5), an order on the Mercy Petition of the petitioner, was passed on 07/07/2003 by which the original penalty was modified and reduced to withholding of one increment for a period of one year. Therefore, the very nature of penalty was changed and it was substituted from major penalty to minor penalty. As there existed minor penalty, there was no impediment to extend the benefit of promotion to the petitioner. Various other juniors of the petitioner were promoted vide order dated 20/05/2002 (Annexure P/4). As there was no major penalty during last five years from the date of consideration, there was no occasion to deny the rightful claim of the petitioner as regards the promotion against the post of Head Constable. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted with effect from the date when his immediate juniors were so promoted.

4. Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer while submitting that undisputedly as there existed a major punishment, the petitioner was not considered for promotion. Subsequently, in Mercy Petition the said penalty was reduced, however, in terms of Clause 9 of GOP (Annexure P/3), the petitioner could have considered in the subsequent process of selection. Therefore, the denial at the relevant point of time was justified and no relief