Prem Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Petitioner is serving as Head Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary. He responded to a notification dated 14.11.2007 issued by the office of

Director General, Uttarakhand Police, whereby process of selection for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police/Platoon Commander PAC

was initiated against 43 vacancies. Petitioner participated in the selection, however, he was not recommended for promotion. Thus, feeling aggrieved,

he made a representation on 09.05.2013. The said representation has been rejected by the Inspector General, Headquarters, Uttarakhand vide order

dated 21.05.2013.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the rejection order dated 21.05.2013 passed by I.G. Police Headquarters and the

consequential order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the Commandant, I.R.B.-II, Haridwar.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per clause 8(gha) and 8(cha) of the notification dated 14.11.2007, the

awards/medals and ACR entries of last ten years alone were to be considered, therefore, petitioner’s service record upto the year 2006 alone

could be considered and penalty/adverse entry given to the petitioner in the year 2007 was liable to be ignored.

In the rejection order, the stand taken is that the earlier notification was amended before holding selection vide notification dated 07.01.2008 and it

was provided that only ACR entries of last ten years (between the year 1997 till the year 2006) will be considered, however, entire service record,

including punishments/adverse entry, will be taken into account. Since petitioner was awarded one major penalty and two minor penalties during the

year 2007 and an adverse entry was also given to him during the year 2007, therefore, four marks were deducted for one major penalty and six marks

were deducted for two minor penalties and five marks were deducted for adverse entry, consequently, his score was reduced by fifteen marks, hence,

he was not selected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the information supplied to the petitioner under Right to Information Act by the Office of the

Commandant, 40th Battalion PAC, Haridwar on 24.06.2013 (annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition), in which it has been stated in reply to

question no. 1 that, as per the record, no amendment was made in the notification issued for holding selection for promotion to the post of Sub-

Inspector Civil Police/Platoon Commander.

In paragraph no. 40 of the writ petition, it has been stated that, in the absence of any amendment in the notification, petitioner’s entire service

record could not have been looked at for denying promotion to him.

This Court finds that the stand taken by the Competent Authority in the rejection order dated 21.05.2013 is contrary to the information supplied

under Right to Information Act vide letter dated 24.06.2013.

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if Competent Authority is requested to re-consider

petitioner’s representation in the light of information given to him vide letter dated 24.06.2013.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a request to Inspector General, Headquarters, Dehradun to examine the matter and take appropriate

decision, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.