AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for Public Service Commission, Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the interveners.
The Petitioner is a member of Uttarakhand Police Force and has presently challenged the DPC held for considering promotions from the post of Inspector to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police, for the year 2008-09, under the S.C. quota. The case of the Petitioner is that he has been awarded entries in different years as follows:
1999
-
Good
2000
-
Very-good
2001
-
Good
2002
-
Good
2003
-
Good
2004
-
Good
2005
-
Good
2006
-
Excellent
2007
-
Excellent
2008
-
Excellent
Inspite of these entries, the Petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police as his case was not recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. Admittedly promotion from the post of Inspector to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police is to be made on the basis of merit.
The principal ground of challenge of the Petitioner is that for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, he has been awarded "Good" entries and had he been awarded better entries of "Very-good" or even "Excellent" in that case, he could have been promoted earlier as well. He has primarily relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , where the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that it is not only the adverse entries which have to be communicated, but even the "Good" entries are liable to be communicated to a government servant for the reasons that the entry may be "Good", yet it may have an adverse effect on chances of his promotion and therefore communication of such entry is necessary because it would enable him to file a representation before the concerned authority stating that such entries were not liable to be given to him and in fact he was liable to be given better entries.
Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court, the Petitioner says that since these entries have not been communicated to him, therefore, it has an adverse effect upon him and therefore, the previous Departmental Promotion Committees held in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009 are liable to be reviewed. This prayer which has been made by the Petitioner in the writ petition cannot obviously be granted by this Court for the simple reason that in case any interference is made by this Court, it would be upsetting the selections and the consequential appointments made in view of the decision taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee of such persons who have not been made party in this petition. Moreover, during the pendency of the writ petition, a Departmental Promotion Committee has also taken place whereby 11 Inspectors were recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee to be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and since there was an interim order of this Court, in view of the interim order, these recommendations could not be enforced. This Departmental Promotion Committee has taken place on 25.5.2011. Out of these candidates, there is only one scheduled caste candidate, namely Mr. Rajan Singh, who is presently represented by Sri Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Mehra, Advocate.
The State Public Service Commission has also filed its counter affidavit. This Court also had an occasion to examine the relative merit of these two persons in view of past service records of the Petitioner and Mr. Rajan Singh, who are both scheduled caste candidate for one post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is reserved for scheduled caste. If we see the service record of Rajan Singh from the year 2000 till the year 2009, we find the following:
2000
-
Very good
2001
-
Very Good
2002
-
Very Good
2003
-
Very Good
2004
-
Excellent
2005
-
Excellent
2006
-
Excellent
2007
-
Excellent
2008
-
Excellent
2009
-
Excellent
The relative grading of the Petitioner on the basis of past service record is as follows:
2000
-
Very good
2001
-
Good
2002
-
Good
2003
-
Good
2004
-
Good
2005
-
Good
2006
-
Excellent
2007
-
Excellent
2008
-
Excellent
2009
-
Excellent
There are five marks for "Good", eight marks for "Very-good" and 10 marks for "Excellent". On the basis of this, while the Petitioner has got 73 marks, the other scheduled caste candidate i.e. Mr. Rajan Singh, who was among the zone of consideration has got 92 marks. The ground of challenge of the Petitioner is that had his "Good'' entries been treated as "Very-good" he was liable to be selected. Even if the ''"Good" entries are treated as "Very Good", in view of the same being not communicated to the Petitioner, then the Petitioner would have got a total marks of 88, which is in any case less than the marks which have been received by the other scheduled caste candidate, namely Rajan Singh. Therefore, there is No. ground to interfere even in the present Departmental Promotion Committee. The only question which remains for examination by this Court is as to whether any interference need to be made in the present Departmental Promotion Committee since the "Good" entries have not been communicated to the Petitioner and in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (supra), they were liable to be communicated.
This is the considered view of this Court that although the Petitioner had knowledge of his being awarded "Good" entries for the year 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 vide information received by him under Right to Information Act on 31.8.2009, he had only challenged this by means of the present writ petition in the year 2011 and therefore even assuming for the sake of arguments that the Hon''ble Apex Court''s decision, as so strongly relied upon by the Petitioners, has a prospective application, No. relief is liable to be given to the Petitioner on that score as well. As already referred above even academically if all his "Good" entries are converted into "Very good" entries even then he does score over Rajan Singh. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Interim order dated 25.4.2011 is vacated.