Smt. Rinki Jatav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33734
1 WP-44946-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 4 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 44946 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030301162026
SMT. RINKI JATAV
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.S.Tomar - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):-

"i) That, the order impugned dated 21.09.2026
(Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent no. 2 may
kindly be quashed and the respondents be further
commanded to pass an appropriate order of granting
promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-3 with a
further to extend all consequential benefits at par with
respondent no. 3 and 4 and pay difference of arrears, in
the interest of justice.
ii) That, the respondents be further commanded to give
due seniority to the petitioner i.e. over and above to the
respondent no. 3 and 4 with a further to place the
petitioner at appropriate seniority in the gradation list,
in the interest of justice.
iii) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or
directions deemed fit in the circumstances of the case
be issued in the favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
10:36:47 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33734
2 WP-44946-2026
have promoted the petitioner's juniors, namely, Shri Jitendra Kumar and Shri

Satendra Dhakad, whose names appear at Serial Nos. 59 and 66, respectively,
in the gradation list reflecting the position as on 01.04.2026, whereas the
petitioner's name appears at Serial No. 58. It is contended that despite the
petitioner being senior to the aforesaid employees, his case for promotion has
not been considered by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner has
already submitted a detailed representation, but the same has not been
considered. It is submitted that the present petition may be disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to consider a fresh representation within a
specified time period.
3. Learned Government Advocate has not opposed the limited prayer
made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. 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 delinquent, such non-communication would be arbitrary and as such is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same view has been
taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of
India, (2008) 8 SCC 725. It is settled law that uncommunicated adverse
ACRS cannot be taken into consideration for promotion.
6. The law relating to consideration of uncommunicated ACRs for
promotion or upgradation is no longer res integra. In the case of Gurdial
Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (1979) 2 SCC 368, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
10:36:47 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33734
3 WP-44946-2026
court held that the non-inclusion of a government servant in the select list on

account of adverse entry which was not communicated and the opportunity
was not afforded to submit representation, cannot be made basis for denial of
the promotion. In the case of Kaluram Patidar Vs. State of MP & Ors WP
No.11064/2010 decided on 25.8.2011, this court relying on the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of
India (2009) 6 SCC 146 came to the conclusion that the ACRs which have
been resulted in denial of the selection grade cannot be considered to be a
ground for denying the claim to an employee. In the case of Dev Dutt Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725, it has been held that non-
communication of entries in the ACRS of a public servant has civil
consequences because it may affect his chance for promotion or get other
benefits. Such non-communication of adverse ACRS would be arbitrary and
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same has been
followed by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rajendra Kumar Verma vs.
State of M.P. 2017(1) MPLJ 391. The Division Bench of this court in the
case Higher Education Department Vs. Dr.(Smt) Kavita Bundela WA
No.421/2017 decided on 23.10.2017 has taken a similar view.
7. The respondents have not shown any fault on the part of the
employee for non-consideration of his case for promotion alongwith his
juniors. Thus, the non-consideration for promotion of petitioner at the
relevant time is solely attributable to the department and there is no fault on
the part of the employee therefore, the employee cannot be denied the
consequential benefits after promotion. In the case of Union of India Vs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
10:36:47 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33734
4 WP-44946-2026
K.V.Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 , the Apex Court held that where the

employee was not at fault and the department deprived him to perform on the
promotional post, the principle of "No work no pay" would not be
applicable. The said principle has been followed by the Apex Court in the
subsequent judgment in the case of State of Kerala Vs. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai
(2007) 6 SCC 524, followed by the Division Bench of this court in the case
of C.B.Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. & others, 2015(2) MPHT 132 . A similar
view has been taken by Division Bench at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur in
WA No.1287/2017 (State of MP and Ors Vs. Jham Singh Pandre) decided on
02.01.2018.
8. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record as
also the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Mehfooz Ahmad v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & another reported as
2024 (3) JLJ 17, the relevant para of which is as follows, it is apparent that
uncommunicated ACRs cannot be taken into account while considering the
case of an employee for promotion:
“36. The uncommunicated ACRs cannot be taken into
consideration by the DPC. Under these circumstances, the
consideration of ACRs by the DPC which were never
communicated to the petitioner, the declaration by the DPC that
the petitioner is not found fit for promotion is per se illegal.
Although the petitioner has been granted promotion subsequently
from a subsequent date but he has sought promotion from the date
when the DPC has considered the case of other candidates that is
from 11/14.08.2016. The DPC has taken a decision to promote the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Registrar vide order dated
02.11.2018 considering the fact that none of ACRs considered by
DPC were communicated to the petitioner.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
10:36:47 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33734
5 WP-44946-2026
9. Reference in this regard may also be had to the decision rendered by

the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India
and others reported as (2009) 16 SCC 146 in which it is also held that even if
a person has received good grade, in that case also it is liable to be
communicated to the employee so that he can have a chance to upgrade the
aforesaid grade.
10. Considering the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to submit a
fresh and detailed representation before the respondent/competent authority
within a period of two weeks from today.
11. In turn, the respondent/competent authority is directed to decide
the said representation keeping in view the criteria of DPC and also consider
the fact that juniors of petitioners have already been promoted vide order
dated 21.09.2026, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after giving a
personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. While considering the
representation, the respondent/competent authority shall also consider the
judgments referred to in paragraphs 5 to 9 of this order, and thereafter
decide the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
12. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
vpn/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
10:36:47 AM