AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner seeks quashing of promotion panel dated 30.01.2006.
This writ petition, prima facie, is not competent, as it suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, as the persons declared fit for promotion
have not been impleaded as parties to this writ petition.
The pleaded case of the Petitioner, is that he was appointed as Constable on 09.08.1973, and promoted to the post of Head Constable on
13.01.1998. The next channel of promotion is to the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
According to the Regulations, the person to be eligible for promotion is required to have minimum service of four years of Head Constable. It is
also stipulated in the Regulations that there should be no charge sheet, against the employee in the last five years prior to the date of selection. The
age limit for promotion under the Regulations is 53.
The Petitioner being fully eligible for being promoted as Sub Inspector of Police, attended the test for promotion, which was held on
18.01.2006. The Petitioner was not successful.
The selection panel is challenged on the ground, that the total marks fixed for the Test were 100, which were bifurcated as under:
1 Written Examination 30 Marks
2 Parade (Drill) 10 Marks
3 Viva 10 Marks
4 Reward 10 Marks
5 Nil punishment for five years 10 Marks
6 Personal File Annual Confidential Report (ACR)20 Marks
7 Outstanding 10 Marks
Total 100 Marks
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the criteria adopted could not be sustained in law, as out of 100 marks, 30 marks were
reserved for Annual Confidential Report and Outstanding Act.
According to the learned Counsel, awarding of 10 marks towards ""Outstanding"" Act and 20 marks towards ""ACR"" are arbitrary, as the
recording of ACR is depends on the superior officer, in which official has no role to play.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the face of it, is misconceived. The ACR are recorded by the higher officer for
performance of duties of the employee. Therefore, it cannot be said that 10 marks for outstanding Act are arbitrary or selection criteria stands
vitiated. Similarly, fixation of 20 marks for ACR cannot be said to be violative of any provisions of law. The recording of ACR through by superior
officer, is in fact recorded on performance of the employee, therefore, it is wrong to say that the employee has no role in ACR.
It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that selected candidates had filed forged documents to take advantage, and to
steal march over the Petitioner.
The contention, again, on the face of it, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected for more than one ground:
1 Firstly, the persons against whom such serious allegations are made are not parties to the writ petition; in absence of party being impleaded, such
allegations cannot be looked into ;
2 Secondly, in support of these allegations, no material has been placed on record. Such wild allegations only show the irresponsible conduct of
the Petitioner. No other point was urged.
Consequently, finding no merit, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.