D.Krishna Rao vs Union of India

Anil Kumar Jukanti, J

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“… to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to 4th respondent to examine the case of the petitioner in reference to DIG(ADM) Ltd., No.P.VII-27/2013-Estt.I dated 25.10.2013 with all connected documents (Board proceedings) and if the case found fit in all respects the seniority of the petitioner in the rank of Assistant Commander should be fixed along with the candidates of SICC Sl.No.84 Batch and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

Heard Mr. G. Pavan Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner, and Mr. G.R.S. Akhileswar, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

Officers Mr. Shri Malle Sivanagaraj, Assistant Commander, Mr. R. Yuvaraj, Inspector/GD, and Mr. P. Ramesh, Assistant Sub Inspector/MIN, are present in the Court with the original record in a sealed envelope. They are present on the directions of the Court to present the entire record.

Petitioner was recruited in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Constable/GD (General Duty) on 1. 12.1990, promoted as Sub-Inspector/(GD) on 13. 05.2003  and  further  promoted  as  Inspector/GD  on 8. 11.2007 and conferred as Assistant Commandant from 3. 05.2011. Petitioner was deputed for pre-promotional course consisting of 12 weeks duration at the Training Institution, Central Training College (CTC), Coimbatore, for Assistant Commandant and was shown as ‘FAIL’ in the final evaluation.

Petitioner’s case was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant and was declared as ‘PASS’ in the month of November, 2011. Grievance of petitioner is that though he performed well in the interview, was awarded 21 out of 50 marks, pass marks being 22.5. Hence, petitioner was shown as ‘FAIL’ in the interview.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was deputed for pre-promotional training in Senior Inspector Cadre Course (SICC) Sl.No.84 Batch. It is further submitted that petitioner, in spite of performing well in the written test and interview, was shown (along with another) as ‘FAIL’ in the entire list of trainees, who appeared for the test (total trainees appeared were 114). It is also submitted that petitioner secured 308 marks out of 500 which included 21 marks in the interview. It is pointed out that petitioner secured 73/100, 71/100, 34/50, 28/50, 30/50, 51/100 marks in various subjects and 21/50 marks in interview. It is further contended that except for the marks in the interview, which were awarded arbitrarily and mala fidely with an intent to fail the petitioner, the petitioner has performed exceedingly well by scoring 61.6 % of marks in various subjects. The subjects in which petitioner scored 61.6% of marks are as follows:

i) Law, CRPF Act & Rules, IPC., Manuals, Minor Acts, Cr.P.C., Enquiries & etc.

ii) Knowledge Attitude, Personality Development and Internal Security.

iii) Internal Assessment

iv) Practical Assessment

v) Tactical And TEWT Exercises

vi) Practical And TEWT Exercises

vii) Interview

It is submitted that due to awarding of less marks in the interview, petitioner was shown as ‘FAIL’ in the final result of SICC Sl.No.84 Batch. It is further submitted that petitioner has been awarded less marks with an intention to deprive him of the promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that the Board evaluated the petitioner basing on the replies to the questions in the interview. It is further submitted that the Board was of the opinion that petitioner was unable to answer or give satisfactory reply to basic questions in the interview and that this fact is evident in the communication by DIGP/Principal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range HQR, CRPF, Chennai. From the said communication, it is evident that as petitioner was unable to answer the basic questions, marks were awarded by the Board basing on his performance. Petitioner’s contention that the intention not to promote the petitioner is unfounded and baseless, as it is evident from the communication that petitioner could not answer even the basic questions.

Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to produce the original record and the same is placed before this Court today. On a perusal of the record, it is observed that of the 114 personnel, who attended the interview, 111 candidates were declared as ‘PASS’. Two candidates were declared as ‘FAIL’. Petitioner was shown at Sl.No.22 bearing Force No.903061438 in the Final Result Sheet in respect of SICC SL No.84 held at CTC-CBE, CRPF, Coimbatore (TN). In the column ‘INTERVIEW’, for 50 marks, the petitioner secured 21 marks and in the next/adjacent column, it is shown as ‘FAIL’. In the remarks column, it is shown as ‘PASS’. When it was queried to the learned counsel for respondents, on instructions, it is stated that out of 50 marks in interview, one should secure 45% marks to be declared as ‘PASS’. Petitioner secured 21 marks, ‘PASS’ mark is 22.5. Petitioner has been rightly declared as ‘FAIL’ in the interview. It could only be an inadvertent print mistake in the remarks column, where it is shown as ‘PASS’, which was rectified as ‘FAIL’ by putting an initial. Petitioner, having secured 21 marks in interview, cannot be declared as successful. The declaration in the remark column as ‘FAIL’ is proper.

In the letter, dated 01.02.2014, DIGP/Principal has stated as follows:

“… Further, it is also ascertained that during the interview, No.903061438 Insp/GD D. Krishna Rao was unable to answer or give satisfactory reply to the basic questions asked by the B.O.O. Hence, he was declared as fail in the interview by the B.O.O.”

On perusal of the letter, dated 01.02.2014, it can be inferred that petitioner was declared as ‘FAIL’ for the reasons stated in the said letter. This Court, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute the view of the Board of Officers (B.O.O.) to that of its own. The candidate’s ability is tested by a Board of Competent Officers. This Court cannot delve into the aspect of the marks awarded by the Board. If this Court ventures to do so, it would be usurping a function delegated to the Board of Officers. It is left for the wisdom of the Board of Officers conducting the interview to choose the best of the personnel to be promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant.

The contention of the petitioner that there was an intention not to promote the petitioner cannot be upheld in view of the observations made above on the basis of the original record (letter dated 01.02.2014), which was placed before this Court. This Court is not inclined to agree with the submissions canvassed at the Bar.

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.