D.C.GHEEWALA - (1.)GHEEWALA J. The petitioner who has served the police Department for more than two decades and who had also won acclaim for his services has approached this court as he has been superseded by many of his juniors. The petitioner initially joined service as a Sub-Inspector of Police. Subsequently he was promoted as Inspector of Police and in ordinary course he should be on the select list for the promotional post of Deputy Superintendant of Police. Unfortunately the petitioner was superseded by many of his juniors and though the said supersession started from the year 1967 the petitioner approached this court only in 1981 when one Mr. Sarola who is respondent No. 3 and who is present in person before the Court was promoted though initially he also was superseded. The petitioner was at Sr. No. 2 in the said seniority list which is produced at Annexure-A.
(2.)The petitioner has averred that all throughout his career spreading over a period of more than two decades he has not so much as even reprimanded except on one occasion when on account of the misdemeanour of his subordinate he was awarded minor penalty. It also appears that the petitioners name was recommended by the Government but as the selection was to be made on the advice of the GPSC inspite of the fact that selection committee had selected the name of the petitioner GPSC was not in favour of giving promotion to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioners confidential report was scrutinised by the GPSC and his performance was not found upto the mark which assessment presumably was based on. this adverse remark contained in the confidential reports which have not been communicated at all to the officer concerned and hence would natura- lly be bad. If these adverse remarks had weighed with the GPSC then the decision of course would be vitiated as the material which ought not to have been taken into consideration for want of being comm- unicated to the petitioner was taken into consideration.
(3.)It is undoubtedly true that the petitioner was superseded initi- ally in the year 1967 and the petitioner has approached this court much later having set pretty over fence for more than one decade. That is undoubtedly a factor which might go against the petitioner in the present petition. But when it appears to the court that the decision of the authority was based on material which ought not to have been taken into consideration or that taking into consideration of such material has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice the fact that the petitioner belatedly approached the court would assume little significance. It is true that if by the petitioners delay rights of third persons have been crystalised during the meanwhile the petitioner cannot be permitted to put the hands of the clock back. There is no sufficient explanation forth- coming from the petitioner as to why from 1967 to 1973 the petitioner did not approach this court. It appears that from 1973 onwards when the petitioner was allowed to cross efficiency bar and was also informed that he will be promoted to the rank of the Dy. S.P. as and when he is found fit the petitioner has been making representations which has so far not been replied by the authorities. It therefore appears to me that the petitioners claim for setting aside his initial supersession right from 1967 will have to be viewed with askance and for the period between 1967 and 1973 the petitioner not having taken any active steps to get redressed all his grievances will not be entitled to steal a march over others. However the petitioners case requires to be consi- dered in view of the fact that since 1973 he has been making represen- tations and the finding of the GPSC respondent No. 4 has been clouded by the adverse remarks passed against the petitioner which were not communicated to him.