1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant Intra-Court Appeal is preferred for quashing the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 2257 of 2016; whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for issuing a mandamus upon the Respondents for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Shirestadar in the Office of District and Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has been dismissed and the reasoned order passed by the concerned Respondent was sustained. For brevity, relevant paragraph of the impugned order is extracted hereinbelow:

                  “Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The respondents after due consideration have passed a reasoned order. This Court is of the view that no consideration can be given to a person who is found guilty of gross misconduct and has been found guilty of insubordination, Indiscipline and dereliction of duty. He has been in habit of forging certificates. Any person who is found guilty of aforesaid charges cannot be considered as he has rightly not been considered for promotion. No interference is required in the writ petition.”

3. Briefly stated, the Petitioner was initially appointed as clerk in the Registry of the 1st Respondent and he joined the said post on 21.05.1974. The grievance of the Petitioner before the Writ Court was that he was the senior most assistant in the establishment of Civil Court at Chaibasa from where he superannuated on 31.01.2016; and the reasoned order is bad in law and on fact, inasmuch as, he was duly entitled for promotion to the post of Shirestadar.

4. From the impugned order, it appears that the Petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 296 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2016 by giving liberty to the Petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Shirestadar and accordingly, as per the order passed by this Court, the Petitioner preferred a representation before the concerned Respondent on 27.01.2016 and the representation was considered and his claim for promotion to the post of Shirestadar in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has been rejected.

5. The case of the Petitioner-Appellant before the Writ Court was that though he was duly competent for consideration for the post of Shirestadar, but he was not considered. He came to know about the allegations against him that he was found guilty of gross misconduct but the same was never communicated to him and from the impugned order only, he came to know about the same; as such, his case for promotion should have been considered.

6. The case of the Respondents before the Writ Court was that the writ-petitioner was found guilty of gross misconduct and he has been held guilty in two departmental proceedings for gross misconduct and was also suspended vide D.J. Order No. 81 of 2004 dated 26.07.2004. As a matter of fact, the further case of the Respondents before the Writ Court was that the writ-petitioner was also involved in verifying false affidavit while performing duty as Court Shirestadar to the District Judge in Civil Revision No. 24 of 2004 and further, he was having several remarks like insubordination, indiscipline, dereliction of duty, gross negligence, etc.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record including the impugned order, it appears that the main grievance of the appellant in the present Intra-Court Appeal is that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that the remarks in the ACR have never been communicated to the appellant and that the appellant has been granted 3rd MACP and was fit to be promoted.

                  Learned Counsel for the Appellant had vehemently argued that since learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the remarks in the ACR have never been communicated to the Appellant; as such, the order requires interference.

8. In this regard, it appears that the PetitionerAppellant had not raised any specific pleading before the learned Single Judge in regard to non-communication of remarks in ACR even though he became well aware of the same from the rejection order passed by the Respondent being order No. 3/16 dated 30.01.2016. This might be the reason why learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the claim of the Petitioner that the remarks in the ACR have never been communicated to the appellant.

                  Even otherwise, since no pleadings in this regard was made, learned Single Judge could not have allowed the appellant to travel beyond the pleadings and consider the case based on such arguments.

9. In this regard reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College((1987) 2 SCC 555) wherein it has been categorically held that it is a settled law that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below:

                  “6. ... It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it ”

10. Now, coming to the second leg of the argument of the Appellant that since he has been allowed 3rd MACP; as such, he was fit to be promoted. This argument is misconceived as it has been categorically held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors2 that the object and purpose of ACP/MACP Scheme is to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and it does not involve actual grant of promotional post but merely monetary benefits in the form of next higher grade. Further, now the law is well settled that the requirement of regular promotion is not necessarily required to be fulfilled for the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP; as such, grant of MACP does not necessarily means that the employee was fit to be promoted.

11. Needless to say, the Appellant had been found guilty twice in different departmental proceedings for gross misconduct and was suspended vide D.J. Order No. 81 of 2004 dated 26.07.2004. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no consideration can be given to a person who is found guilty of gross misconduct, insubordination, dereliction of duty and forging of certificates; as a result, we hold that the order passed by the learned Writ Court does not require any interference.

12. Accordingly, the instant Intra-Court Appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.