IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 21032 of 2002(D)
1. M.CHANDRAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CISF,
... Respondent
2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :12/11/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
==================
O.P.No.21032 of 2002
==================
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was enrolled in the CISF on 2.4.1984 as
Head Constable(Driver). He satisfactorily completed probation
and was confirmed in that post on 1.1.1987 by Ext.P1 order. In
CISF, there are two categories of Head Constables; one is Head
Constable (General Duty) and the other is Head Constable
(Driver). The next promotion post for Head Constables is that
of ASI. For becoming eligible for such promotion Head
Constables have to pass a course called Promotion Cadre
Course(PCC). The petitioner passed the course on 13.3.1993
as evidenced by Ext.P2. Although the promotion to the post of
Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) from among Head Constable
(GD) and Head Constables (Driver) is in the ratio 5:1 as per the
recruitment rules, according to the petitioner, from 1996
onwards there was large deficiency in the number of Head
Constable (Drivers) promoted as ASI. He has demonstrated the
deficiency by producing Ext.P3 chart wherein for the period
from 1996-2001, he has given the total number of Head
Constables promoted, the total number of Head Constable (GD)
O.P.No.21032 of 2002 – 2 –
and the total number of Head Constable (Drivers)promoted as
per 5:1 ratio and the deficiency in the quota prescribed for
Head Constable (Drivers). Since inspite of this deficiency, the
petitioner was not given promotion, the petitioner filed Ext.P5
representation on 29.6.2000. Despite the same, again
promotions were made without reference to the ratio
prescribed. Therefore the petitioner filed O.P. No.22919/2000
before this Court. While that original petition was pending, by
Ext.P6 order dated 25.1.2001, the petitioner was promoted as
ASI. In view of the said promotion, this court by Ext.P7
judgment, disposed of O.P. No. 22919/2000 recording the
promotion and directing the appropriate authority to consider
the representation to be filed by the petitioner seeking
retrospective effect to the promotion. Pursuant thereto, the
petitioner filed Ext.P8 representation. The same was
considered and rejected by Ext.P9, stating that the petitioner
was promoted as and when his turn came as per seniority and
therefore there is no merit in his contention. The petitioner is
challenging Ext.P9 order and seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) Call for the records leading upto Ext.P9 and
quash Ext.P9 by the issuence of a writ of certiorari or any
other direction or order.
(b) Direct the respondents to give promotion to the
petitioner as Assistant Sub Inspector retrospectively with
effect from 1993 onwards with all consequential benefitsO.P.No.21032 of 2002 – 3 –
(c) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be
promoted as ASI from 1993.”
2. The contention of the petitioner is that from 1996
onwards Head Constable (Drivers) have been discriminated in
the matter of promotion as ASI and they were not given their
due as per the ratio prescribed between Head Constable (GD)
and Head Constable (Drivers) for such promotion. Relying on
Ext.P3 which was prepared by the petitioner himself based on
the promotions made, the petitioner submits that during 1996,
1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 as per ratio there was deficiency in
the quota prescribed for Head Constable (Drivers) amounting
to 32, 33, 20, 10 and 41 respectively. The petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted in one of
those vacancies which should have been marked for Head
Constable (Drivers) and which were in fact filed up by Head
Constable (GD), subsequent to 13.3.1993 when the petitioner
became eligible for such promotion.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents 1 to 3. In the same, they have stated that Ext.P3
has not been worked out correctly in accordance with ratio.
According to them, Ext.P3 has been worked out on the basis of
number of persons promoted in a year which is not correct.
They would submit that the ratio should have been applied to
O.P.No.21032 of 2002 – 4 –
the total number of vacancies for promotion in the rank of ASI
for which DPC was called for as in paragraph 11 of the counter
affidavit. They would further submit that the zone of
consideration is worked out on the basis of such vacancies.
The petitioner was not considered for promotion since the zone
of consideration at the relevant time was only up to 785 in the
seniority list and the petitioner was only 878 in the seniority
list. As and when in 2000 the petitioner’s turn came, he would
duly considered and promoted is the contention raised. The
respondents therefore submit that there is no merit in the writ
petition.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. At the outset I am constrained to say that the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 dealing with the
specific contentions of the petitioner is as vague as vague can
be. The petitioner’s specific contention based on Ext.P3 is that
for years between 1996 and 2000 there was deficiency in filling
up the quota prescribed for Head Constable (Drivers) in the
matter of filling up the promotion based on ASI. He has also
specifically stated the number of promotions made each year
and the number of Head Constable (GD) was promoted and
number of Head Constable (Drivers) was promoted and the
deficiency as per the quota prescribed. This is answered by the
O.P.No.21032 of 2002 – 5 –
respondents 1 to 3 by paragraphs 11 to 15 of the counter
affidavit which reads thus:
“11. Based on the vacancies allotted to the feeder
category of HC/GD ad HC/Dvr, the zone of consideration is
worked out from the seniority list of HC/GD and HC/Dvr.
The number of persons in the feeder categories called for
the zone of consideration will be twice the number of
vacancies +4, if vacancy is more than 5.
12. The DPC prepares the proceedings for each
feeder category. Based on the DPC proceedings, if it is
found that there is no suitable HC/Dvrs for promotion to
ASI/Exe, the vacancy shall be filled from amongst the
approved list of HC/GD.
13. The petitioner has worked out 5:1 ratio (Ext.P3)
on the number of persons promoted in a year which is not
correct. The petitioner should have calculated the 5:1 ratio
on the total number of vacancy released for promotion to
the rank of ASI/Exe for which DPC was called for as given in
para 11 above, and not on the numbers promoted.
14. The number of vacancies allotted to the feeder
category of HC/GD and HC/Dvrs is as 5:1 ratio. The zone of
consideration is worked out on the basis of these vacancies.
There were no such application said to have been submitted
by the petitioner on 21.3.2000. The Ext.P4 filed along with
the OP is the application dated 16 March 2000, which was
considered and promptly replied by the respondents.
15. The petitioner was not considered for promotion
since the zone of consideration, seniority list upto 785 was
only called for DPC/ In the supplementary DPC, the zone of
consideration was upto PSL 960. The petitioner’s seniority
number being 878 was included in the zone of
consideration. The petitioner case was not considered for
promotion earlier was not because the petitioner was unfit
for promotion but because he did not came under the zone
of consideration.”
I am again constrained to say that these averments are vague
in respect of the deficiency in the quota prescribed for Head
Constable (Drivers). If the respondents had a case that the
number of promotions stated in Ext.P3 are not correct, they
O.P.No.21032 of 2002 – 6 –
would have certainly categorically stated so. What they state is
that the petitioner has calculated the ratio based on the
number of persons promoted in a year and the petitioner
should have calculated the ratio on the total number of
vacancies released for promotion for which DPC was called for.
They have not chosen to prove the same by producing the ratio
rule and giving the number of vacancies as claimed by them.
Therefore the possible conclusion is that the number of
promotions given in Ext.P3 are correct. If the number of
promotions given in Ext.P3 for each year are correct, then
applying 5:1 ratio clearly there is deficiency in the ratio
prescribed for Head Constables (Drivers). Instead they vaguely
denied Ext.P3 saying that the ratio should have been applied to
the total number of vacancy for promotion to the rank of ASI
for which DPC was called for. But they did not come forward
with the contention that for each year the total number of
vacancies for which DPC considered for promotion were so
much and how the ratio was applied. Therefore in the absence
of any specific denial of the number of promotions given in
Ext.P3, I am inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner
that there was deficiency and the petitioner was not given his
due promotion. If that is accepted I have to accept that the
petitioner has become eligible for promotion as ASI in the
O.P.No.21032 of 2002 – 7 –
quota prescribed for Head Constable (Drivers) in 1996 itself.
6. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner was entitled to
be promoted as Head Constable (Driver) in 1996 as per the
ratio prescribed. Appropriate orders giving retrospectivity to
the promotion given to the petitioner by Ext.P7, with effect
from 1996, shall be issued an consequential monetary benefits
given to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. But I make it clear that if for giving effect to the
said direction corresponding date of promotion has to be given
to others senior to the petitioner among Head Constable
(Drivers) the same shall be done, based on the deficiency
shown in Ext.P3. But since no such person has approached this
Court they will not be entitled to any monetary benefits of such
anterior date of promotion.
The original petition is allowed as above.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs