IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16572 of 2010(V)
1. MATHEW ABRAHAM, S/O.LATE ABRAHAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OF KERALA,
3. CHAIRMAN,DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA
5. M.J.GOPAKUMAR,MANAGER,
6. K.K.CHELLAPPAN,SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.16572 OF 2010(V)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Manager working in KAP 5th Battalion. He aspires
promotion to the post of Administrative Assistant. DPC was held on
11.3.2010 and the 5th respondent was promoted by Ext.P2 order.
Going by Ext.P1 seniority list, petitioner is at Sl. No.58 and the 5th
respondent is at Sl. No.69. Petitioner submits that overlooking his
seniority, 5th respondent was given promotion mainly for the reason
that the DPC relied on adverse remarks in the confidential records
of the petitioner which were not communicated to him. In view of
the case of the petitioner that it was entirely relying on the
uncommunicated adverse remarks the promotion was denied to
him, this court directed the respondents to file a statement in the
matter. Accordingly a statement was filed.
2. Government Pleader has now made available the
confidential records of the petitioner for the period from 11.2009 to
20.5.2009, which contains the adverse remarks in question.
According to the Government Pleader, it was only on 9.2.2010 that
WPC.No. 16572/2010
:2 :
the Reviewing Officer, agreed with the remarks made by the
Reporting Officer and that the petitioner had entered on long leave
for the period from 12.1.2010 to 11.4.2010 and reported for duty
only on 12.4.2010. It is stated it was only thereupon that the
remarks could be communicated to the petitioner and that prior to
that DPC was convened on 11.3.2010. It is also stated that
subsequently remarks were communicated to the petitioner on
28.5.2010.
3. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the provision
contained in Rule 28(b)(1) of Part-II KS & SSR to contend that un
communicated adverse remarks cannot be relied on against the
petitioner and therefore according to him promotion given to the 5th
respondent overlooking his claim is illegal.
4. Since, the adverse remarks could not be communicated,
in the aforesaid factual background, I feel in the facts of this case,
the proper course to be adopted is to direct the 2nd respondent,
before whom the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 representation against
the adverse remarks, to consider and pass orders on the
representation. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider
WPC.No. 16572/2010
:3 :
and dispose of Ext.P9, which shall be done at any rate within 6
weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.
Needless to say, depending upon the orders passed on Ext.P9, if it
is necessary, ad hoc DPC will be held and the petitioner’s case for
promotion to the post of Administrative Assistant will be considered
afresh.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a
copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/