ORDER
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal, dated January 27, 1998, passed in Original Application No. 76/97. Minimal facts emerging out of the record of this case may be narrated.
2. The petitioner, Dr. K.K. Khare, was appointed as Specialist in Public Health and Family Welfare Department on 24-4-1968. Thereafter, he was promoted as Chief Medical Officer in 1989 followed by promotion as Joint Director on 8-7-1992. Dr. L.P. Mathur was appointed Specialist on 22-4-1964. He was promoted Chief Medical Officer and then Joint Director on 8-7-1992. In the seniority list dated 3-1-1996 (Annexure P/2), petitioner has been shown senior to Dr. L.P. Mathur.
3. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, there were two posts, namely, Director, Public Health & Family Welfare and Director, Medical Services. Both the posts were vacant, therefore, exigency was felt to fill up these posts simultaneously, According to Madhya Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988, the requirement was that Joint Director, Public Health and Family Welfare, should have three years’ experience for consideration to these posts and that promotion is based on merit-cum-seniority.
4. Consequently, the Departmental Promotion Committee had its sitting on 27-2-1996 for this purpose. Before proceeding with the matter of selection, it laid down the criteria that a candidate should possess ‘very good’ ACRs for three years, and no adverse report against him. It took into consideration the ACRs for five years from 1990-91 to 1994-95. With this back ground, Dr. P.K. Bajaj and Dr. L.P. Mathur were adjudged more meritorious as compared to the petitioner. As such, they were recommended for appointment as Director, Medical Service and Director, Public Health and Family welfare respectively on 18-10-1996. The promotion order is dated 18-10-1996, (Annexure P/3).
5. Aggrieved by this selection, the petitioner challenged the promotion of Dr. L.P. Mathur and not that of Dr. P.K. Bajaj on the ground that Dr. P.K. Bajaj is decidedly senior to the petitioner. Having quoted these facts, we proceed to deal with the submissions advanced by Shri Sheel Nagu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. First contention is that ACRs of the petitioner for the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 were down graded by the Principal Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of M.P., on 22-11-1995, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. The result was that the petitioner received low grading although his career before and after the ACRs under consideration has been ‘outstanding’ and ‘very good’.
7. The State Administrative Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter quite candidly and comprehensively After quoting extensively from the record perused by it, Tribunal held that even if the ACRs of the petitioner for the three years in dispute are taken away, even then the petitioner does not enjoy the merit in accordance with the criteria. This finding is based on fact, therefore, the contention that the Tribunal did not appreciate this aspect of the matter correctly, cannot be accepted. In view of this result, it is not necessary to record finding whether the accepting authority, the Principal Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare, could down grade the ACRs of the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing, though there is no doubt that he could competently down grade the ACRs being the Accepting Authority.
8. Shri Sheel Nagu, learned counsel for the petitioner, then contended that as per the petitioner, the ACRs for the years under consideration are ‘outstanding’, ‘good’, ‘very good’, ‘very good’ and ‘outstanding’, therefore, the criteria laid down by the Departmental Promotion Committee is fulfilled. This contention cannot be appreciated. This submission is based on conjectures and surmises, since the Tribunal has been the ACRs of the petitioner for all five years under consideration from the official records. Therefore, this objection is unsustainable and is liable to be rejected.
9. In view of the aforesaid back ground, the conclusion is irresistible that the Departmental Promotion Committee has adjudged the respondent-3 more meritorious for promotion as compared to the petitioner. The matter has been examined by the Tribunal properly and there is no justification to take view different from the one taken by the Tribunal in this case.
10. Since we find that the petitioner was senior to the respondent-3 in the seniority list, therefore, he had some justification to feel aggrieved by promotion of Dr. L.P. Mathur (respondent-3). Consequently, he challenged the selection which cannot be said to be completely without any justification. Therefore imposition of cost would be harsh in such a case. Consequently, the imposition of cost by the Tribunal is set aside.
11. For the reason stated above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs in this case.
