SURENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Faizur Rehman, learned counsel for the respondent Union of India.

(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an order setting aside the order dated 29.12.2005 (Annexure -1) issued by Assistant Inspector General (Personnel), C.I.S.F. containing names of officers who were granted promotion but the petitioner was not granted promotion. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 07.04.2006 (Annexure -3) issued by the Respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner's representation for his promotion has been rejected. The petitioner has made a further prayer for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for his promotion to the higher post with effect from 29.12.2005 and to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 2004 -05.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the petitioner's candidature for his promotion was referred to the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) for consideration but the D.P.C. had State Of Jharkhand Through Director General Of Police Versus Thakur Ajit Kumar arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's case on the ground of purported adverse remarks in his A.C.R., even without considering the A.C.Rs of the preceding five years, as required under the rules of procedure. Learned counsel explains that even as admitted in the impugned order (Annexure -3), though the meeting of the D.P.C. was held in the month of December, 2005 for the purpose of considering the case of the eligible candidates for their promotion against the vacancies accrued in the year 2005 -06, but the petitioner's A.C.R. for the year 2004 -05 was not considered and this being an irregularity, the decision of the D.P.C. is perse arbitrary and vitiated. Learned counsel adds that even though at its next meeting in May, 2006, the D.P.C. had considered the A.C.R. of 2004 - 05 but acted upon the adverse remarks recorded therein even without enabling adequate opportunity to him to file his representation for expunction of the adverse remarks. Learned counsel adds further that even thereafter, the D.P.C. had held its meeting in the subsequent years also against the existing vacancies, but each time, on the ground that the petitioner's A.C. R. did not qualify for his promotion, his case was not recommended by the D.P.C. Learned counsel adds further that the petitioner had filed his representation stating in detail, his grievance that even without communicating the purported adverse entries in his A.C.R. for the year 2004 -05, the adverse entries were taken into consideration for rejecting his claim and had prayed for reconsideration of his case for his promotion, but by the impugned letter, it was communicated to him that his representation was rejected.