SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.G. Balakrishnan and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 626 of 2005, Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2449 of 2003. D/d. 20.1.2005.

Kushal Singh Gautam - Appellant

Versus

State of M.P. and others - Respondents

Promotion - Selection - The appellant Patwari was due for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar - The promotion based on a written examination and also the evaluation of A.C.R.s - The appellant obtained 70% marks whereas Respondents 3 to 6 obtained lesser marks - Denied promotion because the appellant had been given Grades 'D', 'B', 'D' and 'B' in his ACRs whereas Respondents 3 to 6 had given 'A+ and 'A' grades - Writ Petition - The High Court declined to interfere - The appellant moved a representation before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue for expunging the remarks - The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the representation and held that the appellant was entitled to be graded as 'A' declared the appellant as fit for promotion - Respondents secured 'A+' whereas the appellant could secure only 'A' - Proved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer that the appellant had secured higher grading - Respondent 2 authority is directed to consider whether the appellant entitled to be promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar on the basis of revised grading in his confidential reports, consider all other relevant materials and pass appropriate orders.

[Paras 2 to 5]

ORDER

K.G. Balakrishnan, J. - The appellant had been working as Patwari in the Revenue Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant was due for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. The promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar was based on a written examination and also the evaluation of the entries made in the annual confidential reports. The appellant appeared in the written test and according to him he obtained 70% marks whereas Respondents 3 to 6 obtained lesser marks in the result declared on 13-8-1996. According to the appellant, Respondents 3 to 6 were given promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar but the appellant was denied promotion. He challenged the order of promotion of Respondents 3 to 6 by filing Original Application No. 211 of 1998 before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench. The Tribunal by its order dated 29-7-1999 held that the appellant had secured only 50 marks for the annual confidential reports as he had been given Grades 'D', 'B', 'D' and 'B' for the years 1991, 1993, 1994 and 1995 respectively whereas Respondents 3 to 6 had secured 'A+' and 'A' grades for all the years and on this premise, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant.

2. The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal before the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 242 of 2000. The High Court declined to interfere with the order and dismissed the writ petition with costs.

3. We have heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents.

4. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant had all along been doing good work and he was given Grade 'A' in the year 1992 and thereafter no adverse entries were communicated to him. He was not even informed of the fact that he had been given 'D' grade for the years 1991 and 1994. The appellant had moved a representation before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) for expunging the remarks passed against him in ACRs and to give proper categorisation in respect of his official performance. The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 29-3-2003 by an elaborate order allowed the representation of the appellant and held that the appellant was entitled to be graded as 'A' in his confidential reports and held that the entries in the confidential reports for the years 1991 to 1995 are made as very good i.e. 'A' in his confidential reports and the appellant was declared as fit for promotion.

5. Based on this the appellant contended that the whole selection process for appointment of Naib Tahsildar was vitiated as the appellant had secured higher marks than Respondents 3 to 6 in the written examination and their appointment was illegal. We find force in this contention. Of course, counsel for the State has admitted that the pleas raised by the appellant before this Court are not fully correct and it was pointed out that the other respondents have secured 'A+' for several years whereas the appellant could secure only 'A'. However, it is proved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the appellant had secured higher grading. In that view of the matter, we direct Respondent 2 to consider whether the appellant was entitled to be promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar on the basis of revised grading in his confidential reports and Respondent 2 shall also consider all other relevant materials and pass appropriate orders within two months from today.

6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

.