M.L.Bhat, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has not been selected to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police whereas, according to the petitioner, his juniors have been promoted to the said post by superseding him. Those, who have allegedly superseded the petitioner, are arrayed as respondents no. 3 to 21 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner's case, as set up in the writ petition, was that he was shown at serial no. 19 in the seniority list, which was accorded sanction on 12-7-1985 and a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Vide order dated 29-8-1986 promotion to the next rank of Additional Superintendent of Police with respect to 38 officers, belonging to the direct and promotee Dy. Superintendent of Police was made with effect from 23-4-1986. THE petitioner should have been figured at serial no. 20 but he was not promoted. A copy of this order is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Amongst 38 promotees 50% are from direct recruits and 50 per cent are from promotee officers THE petitioner was entitled to be promoted amongst the promotee officers because in the list of promotee officers he was at the top. Aggrieved against the said promotion order the petitioner is said to have filed a representation on 6-9-1986 to the Home Secretary to the U. P. Government. A copy of the said representation is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. THE petitioner has stated that his service career is excellent and he has been discharging his duties with devotion and responsibility. To explain his devotion he has cited one or two examples with regard to his duties. THE representation was not decided. THErefore, he submitted another representation on 31-7-1987, a copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. THE said representations were not considered at all, therefore, he submitted last representation on 30-11-1987 for consideration of his earlier representations and for granting him promotion with effect from 23-4-1986. THE petitioner submits that he was at the fag end of his career and he was arbitrarily deprived of promotion which has resulted in great financial loss to him. In their counter affidavit the respondents have admitted that the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police on 2-8-1970 and was confirmed on the said post with effect from 1st Angust, 1976 vide Government order dated 26-3-1987. It is however, stated that the petitioner's service record was not unblemished and clean, as asserted by him. He is said to have been given adverse entries for the years 1981-82 and 984-85. The adverse portion of the annual remark of 1984-85, of course, was expunged by Government Order dated 22-7-1986 but his conduct was found not desirable by the Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur. Range Gorakhpur, as revealed from the letter dated 30-5-1985, a copy whereof is Annexure CA- 1 to the counter-affidavit. It is also stated that certain enquiries are still pending against the petitioner with the, Anti-Corruption Organisation, C. I. D. U. P. The petitioner was found not fit to be given promotion hence his name was not included amongst 38 officers who were promoted vide order dated 29-8-1986 to the post of Additional Superintendent "of Police. The plea regarding the petitioner having made representations is admitted. The contents of the letter, which is contained in Annexure CA-1 to the counter- affidavit and the petitioner having earned some bad remarks from the Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Range are not recorded in his character roll. However, the contents of the said letter show that the allegations against the petitioner were that he allowed one mini-truck to be operated as passenger vehicle in the district of his posting without a permit in the name of his wife and daughter and another mini-truck in the name of his brother-in-law in similar manner and the fact that his brother-in-law stayed with him at Jaunpur in his house shows his personal interest. His conduct therefore, was held to be not desirable, in this regard. This letter is dated 30-5-1985. On being told about the adverse entries and the letter contained in Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit the petitioner applied to amend the writ petition. In the application for amendment he has stated that the adverse entries for the year 1984-85 were expunged vide Government Order dated 22-7-1986 but this fact was not brought on record andthe D. P. C. does not seem to be aware of this fact. Therefore, the adverse remark, which is already expunged, seems to have been taken note of and the petitioner was superseded by the Selection on the basis of material which did not exist before it. The petitioner's supersession therefore was vitiated because it is based on non-existent material The petitioner has stated that he had crossed the Efficiency Bar on 8-5-1982 during the course of revision of pay. Therefore, any adverse annual remark in the character roll stands washed away. So far as the contents of the letter contained in Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit were concerned it is stated that neither they were communicated to the petitioner nor was he asked to file a representation against the same. Hence they cannot be taken into consideration. In the amendment application the petitioner has produced some annexures showing that the petitioner's service record was excellent but the said record was withheld and has not been considered by the D. P. C.
(3.) THE Respondents no. 1 and 2 have denied the petitioner's plea that he has any excellent service record. It is stated that in the year 1981-82 he was given an adyerse entry. It is further stated that the D. P. C. is not impleaded as a party. THE promotion of the candidates was to be made after making over-all assessment of their work and judging their suitability. It is stated that some enquiry is still pending against the petitioner with the Anti-Corruption Organisation relating to corruption. However, no document is filed as to which type of enquiry is pending against the petitioner. It ill submitted that the petitioner has crossed Efficiency Bar but that would hoi entitle the petitioner, according to' the respondent no. I and 2, to get promotion. In his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has stated the nature of what is called adverse entry by the respondents no. 1 and 2, which is in the following words,: "He tried to dispose of papers hurriedly and lacks thoroughness." It is stated that this entry cannot be termed as adverse entry and it is a distorted picture of the report because the entry of the year 1981-82 is to be read as a whole. The said entry as contained in Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit is with respect to the periods The first entry is for the period 1-4-1981 to 4-7-1981. The other period is 4-10-1981 to 3l-3-1981 It shall be commented upon at the appropriate place in this judgment vide order dated 30-7-1990 the petition has,been ordered to be amended; The amendment application is part of the record. The petitioner, therefore challenges the selection list also and prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the same.;