Dr.Anil Bais v. Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh

WP-6598-2010 (DR.ANIL BAIS Vs SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 18-09-2015 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Johri, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. The case is listed for admission. Return has been filed. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the controversy involved for consideration in this petition has been squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the matter of Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India and others reported in (2013) 9 S.C.C.

566. Hence, with the consent of the parties the petition is heard and disposed of finally. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is in regard to grant of selection grade. As per the return filed by the respondents, case of the petitioner was considered for grant of selection grade by D.P.C. in the year of 2001 and the petitioner was found eligible for grant of selection grade w.e.f. 01.04.2003 and he was granted the benefit accordingly. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to get benefit of selection grade w.e.f. 27.07.1998. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation that was rejected. The respondents in the return pleaded that the petitioner was not eligible to get the aforesaid benefit because his ACRs for relevant period were not of required grading, hence, he was not granted the benefit. It is an admitted fact that the ACRs of the relevant time were not communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to submit representation in regard to up- gradation of ACRs. The Supreme court in the matter of Dev Dutt vs Union of India & others reported in (2008) 8 S.C.C. 725 has held that any grading of ACRs, which affects the chances of promotion of the employees, has to be communicated to the employee so he can get an opportunity to submit representation against the aforesaid grading. The aforesaid view has further been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India and other reported in (2013) 9 S.C.C. 56 and the Court has held as under :

3. Subsequent to the above two decisions, in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, this Court had an occasion to consider the question about the communication of the entry in the ACR of a public servant (other than military service). A two-Judge Bench on elaborate and detailed consideration of the matter and also after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and principles of natural justice exposited by this Court from time to time particularly in A.K. Kraipak vs Union of India, Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy and Sate of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust concluded that every entry in the ACR o f a pub l i c s e rvan t mus t be communicated to him within a reasonable period whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with following directions :

1. That the petitioner be communicated the ACR entries on the basis of which he was not found fit to grant relief of selection grade, as claimed by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today.

2. The petitioner is at liberty to submit representation against the aforesaid ACR entr ies for up -gradat ion and those representations be decided by the competent authority within a period of two months thereafter and if the ACR grading of the petitioner be up-graded, his case for grant of selection grade be re-considered and appropriate order be passed in this regard. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules. (S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE