IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 426 of 2008
...
Surendra Pal Singh ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The Union of India and Others ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. K.K.Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: - Mr. Faizur Rehman, Advocate.
...
5 / 05.05.2009
Heard Sri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Faizur Rehman, learned counsel for the respondent Union of India.
2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an order
setting aside the order dated 29.12.2005 (Annexure-1) issued by Assistant
Inspector General (Personnel), C.I.S.F. containing names of officers who
were granted promotion but the petitioner was not granted promotion.
A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated
07.04.2006 (Annexure-3) issued by the Respondent No. 3 whereby the
petitioner’s representation for his promotion has been rejected.
The petitioner has made a further prayer for a direction to the
respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for his promotion to the
higher post with effect from 29.12.2005 and to expunge the adverse
remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 2004-05.
2. The petitioner is presently holding the rank of Deputy
Commandant of the C.I.S.F. under the respondent unit. His grievance is
that the persons junior to him have been granted promotion against
vacancies year after year but the petitioner has been denied the benefit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the
petitioner’s candidature for his promotion was referred to the
Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) for consideration but the
D.P.C. had arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s case on the ground of
purported adverse remarks in his A.C.R., even without considering the
A.C.Rs of the preceding five years, as required under the rules of
procedure. Learned counsel explains that even as admitted in the
impugned order (Annexure-3), though the meeting of the D.P.C. was held
in the month of December, 2005 for the purpose of considering the case of
the eligible candidates for their promotion against the vacancies accrued
in the year 2005-06, but the petitioner’s A.C.R. for the year 2004-05 was not
considered and this being an irregularity, the decision of the D.P.C. is per-
se arbitrary and vitiated. Learned counsel adds that even though at its
-2-
next meeting in May, 2006, the D.P.C. had considered the A.C.R. of 2004-
05 but acted upon the adverse remarks recorded therein even without
enabling adequate opportunity to him to file his representation for
expunction of the adverse remarks.
Learned counsel adds further that even thereafter, the D.P.C. had
held its meeting in the subsequent years also against the existing
vacancies, but each time, on the ground that the petitioner’s A.C.R. did
not qualify for his promotion, his case was not recommended by the
D.P.C.
Learned counsel adds further that the petitioner had filed his
representation stating in detail, his grievance that even without
communicating the purported adverse entries in his A.C.R. for the year
2004-05, the adverse entries were taken into consideration for rejecting his
claim and had prayed for reconsideration of his case for his promotion,
but by the impugned letter, it was communicated to him that his
representation was rejected.
4. The respondents in their counter affidavit have answered the issues
raised by the petitioner by explaining that admittedly the petitioner’s case,
along with all eligible candidates, was considered by the D.P.C. for
promotion to the higher post against the existing vacancies. The A.C.Rs of
the preceding five years were taken into consideration in respect of all the
eligible candidates, but in the case of the petitioner, since the A.C.R. of
2004-05 had contained certain adverse remarks which were not yet
communicated to the petitioner to enable him to file his representation for
expunction of the adverse remarks, the entries of the A.C.R. for the year
2004-05 were therefore not taken into consideration initially in December,
2005 and the decision of the D.P.C. was based on the A.C.Rs. of the
preceding four years. The petitioner was later informed about the adverse
entries against which he filed his representation of expunction. The
representation was considered and thereafter rejected. At the next meeting
of the D.P.C. in May, 2006, the petitioner’s case was again considered on
the basis of his A.C.Rs of the preceding five years and he was again found
not fit for promotion.
5. Having considered the facts of the case and the issues raised by the
petitioner, it appears that the petitioner’s sole grievance is that the
respondent authorities had delayed the communication of the adverse
entries in his A.C.R. for the year 2004-05 by more than one year thereby
preventing him from filing his representation for expunction of the
-3-
remarks within time and on the other hand, have rejected the petitioner’s
case for promotion on the basis of the aforesaid adverse remarks. It also
appears that in the matter of taking decision regarding the promotions of
the officers, the D.P.C. is bound by certain guidelines and, as declared in
the counter affidavit, the guidelines have been meticulously followed by
the D.P.C. and as such, the decision of the D.P.C. cannot be questioned by
the petitioner in this writ application.
7. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merit in this writ
application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/