SHOWKAT HUSSAIN MIR Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Showkat Hussain Mir
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) PETITIONER is a Constable (Mechanic) working as Electrician with Armed wing of the State Police after his appointment on 22.06.1982 on
substantive basis. In 1991, on the recommendations of the Departmental
Promotion Committee various police personnel in transport Workshop Cadre,
were promoted as Head Constables and Selection Grade Constables.
Respondents 4 to 10, junior to petitioner were promoted as Selection
Grade Constables vide order dated 11.03.1991 (Annexure -p3). The
petitioner was left out and not promoted.
(2.) THIS order 120 of 91 dated: 11.03.1991 as also promotion of respondents 4 to 10 juniors to the petitioner is under challenge in this
(3.) PETITIONER alleges that the promotion to selection Grade has to be according to seniority/merit. Petitioner is senior to the promoted
respondents 4 to 10, as is evident from seniority list (Annexure -P2). The
petitioner has earned a recommendation certificate in 1987. His conduct
is good. Petitioners character roles are also good and satisfactory, in
so far as if there were any adverse remarks or adverse entries in his
ACRs/APRs, same would have been conveyed to him, therefore, he presumes
that his ACRs are not adverse to him. For promotion to the post of
Selection Grade Constable, neither any written test nor viva -examination
is prescribed or held. No minimum qualification marks are prescribed for
the purpose. No criteria or norm is laid or adopted for giving promotions
to the higher grade of selection grade constable posts to eligible
constables. Though on seniority, merit and suitability he deserved to be
promoted, yet he was denied grade promotion illegally without any
justifiable reason. The petitioner has not been given equal treatment
with those who were equally placed and circumstanced as the petitioner
for purpose of the promotion in question.
Respondents have filed reply. It is admitted that the petitioners appointment as Constable Electrician has been on substantive
post. It is also admitted that the petitioner is senior to respondents.
It is averred that the departmental Promotion Committee considered the
case of petitioner alongwith respondents and other eligible candidates.
The seniority of petitioner is not denied. Non -communication of adverse
ACRs is not also refuted. Earning of recommendation awarded in 1987 is
not also refuted. However, petitioner is stated to have been, refused
promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee after it found that the
petitioner has been awarded minor punishment in December 1987 and
punishment of fine in January 1998. Besides the remarks recorded in the
character roles of the petitioner for the years 1986 to 1990, were
adverse. The Committee assessed him for the rank of selection fixed
constable. The Departmental Promotion Committee fixed 12 marks for
qualifying for the rank selection Grade Constable. But the petitioner
could only earn one negative mark. Hence no promotion. The criteria for
promotion to the Selection Grade Constable is merit -cum -seniority and not
vice versa and other respondents secured the qualifying marks and
therefore were found fit and given promotion. The counsel for petitioner
solicits that no norm or method is laid by Departmental Promotion
Committee for selection to Selection Grade Constable. No yard stick is
laid to Judge how the 12 marks have been assessed and apportioned incase
of candidates failing within consideration zone. The whole material
before Departmental Promotion Committee was one performance certificate,
one minor punishment, one fine punishment and allegedly the adverse ACRs
for four years 1986 to 1990, on which the petitioner has been considered.
Since alleged adverse ACRs for all these years have not been conveyed to
petitioner, therefore, the same could not have been considered adverse to
petitioner. This is so as in reply, respondents have not refuted/denied
the petitioners allegation that the adverse remarks in petitioners
character roles were at no stage and even for that matter the adverse
censure and punishment was/were at no stage communicated to him. This
being so there is no material whatsoever adverse to the petitioner and
capped to it the seniority of the petitioner would place the petitioner
on a stronger footing than the respondents. Petitioner has been
discriminated against and arbitrarily left out from the promotion list
and denied promotion.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.