- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. This special appeal has been preferred from the judgment and order dated 17-10-1995, passed in Writ peti tion No. 27949 of 1995 by which the writ petition has been dismissed in limine.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that petitioner Desh Bahadur Singh Gautam joined police service as Sub-In spector in the year 1973-74. He was con firmed in this service in 1980. Aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in C. I. List 2 of 1989, the appellant made several applica tions before superior authorities for con sideration of his name to be included in the aforesaid list which included the names of Sub-Inspectors fit for consideration for promotion as Inspectors. Ultimately, the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8500 of 1991 in which dt. 5-2-1993 an order was passed by the learned Single Judge to the following effect: "heard Shri S. A. Jilani learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, Until further orders, the petitioner will be considered for promotion as Inspector as, in my opinion, he is eligible for promotion. He should be considered for promotion with in two months on production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. " In pursuance of the aforesaid interim order, a Committee consisting of five high ranking officials including the Director General of Police as Chairman, considered the claim of the appellant and found that appellant's name was rightly not included in the C. I. List 2 for being considered for promotion as Inspector and no amendment is required to be made in the said list. THE reasons recorded by this Committee were that the appellant was awarded adverse entries on 11-9-1978, 31-1-1983 and 10-6- 1985. Further, he has also been awarded adverse entry in 1992. His integrity of 1978 was withheld in 1980. THE appellant, how ever, made an application in Civil Misc. writ petition No. 8500 of 1991 for modification of the order dated 5-2-1993 in pursuance of which the Committee and considered the name of the appellant regarding inclusion of his name in C. I. List 2 of 1989. On this application, the order dated 5-2-1993 was modified on 1-10-1993. Operative part of the order was to the following effect: "on the facts and circumstances of the case, I, therefore, modify my order dated 5-2-1993 and direct that with in a month from the production of a certified copy of this order before the ap propriate authority, the petitioner will be again reconsidered for promotion as Inspector of police treating him to be eligibleand the authority shall take into account the facts mentioned in Para. 16 of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that the person having the same number or more ad verse entries have been promoted. " Therefore, appellant filed Contempt petition No. 1123 of 1994 in which also an order was passed. Consequently, another Committee consisting of very high officials of police department including the Director General of Police, who presided the meet ing, again considered the name of the appel lant on 19-8-1995. This Committee con sidered appellant's name for promotion treating his name having been included in C. I. List 2 of 1989. The conclusions of this Committee were as under: I. The candidates mentioned in para. 16 of the Writ petition are those Sub-Inspectors of Police who were included in C. I. List 2 of 1987-88 and they were already promoted against which petitioner never raised any objection. He raised grievance only against C. I. List 2 of 1989. In the circumstances there is no question of petitioner being discriminated so far as the candidates men tioned in para. 16 are concerned. II. As per the Government instructions is sued from time to time and the Circulars of the Department, the criterion for promotion is merit and not seniority. III. From perusal of the service record of petitioner his qualifications and interview, petitioner could secure total 39. 5 marks. IV. Out of the candidates mentioned in C. L. List 2 of 89, the last candidate included in the list secured 55. 5 marks and the last candidate who has been selected for promotion after consideration has secured C2 marks. In the circumstances, the petitioner has not been in anyway discriminated. Aggrieved by the aforesaid con clusion of the Committee appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27949 of 1995 which has been dismissed in limine on 17-10-1995, hence his appeal. 3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant on merit. Hov. 'cver, we do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the Committee on 19-8-1995. Learned counsel for the ap pellant tried to persuade us to enter into the assessment of the merit or the appeal for challenging the order passed by the Com mittee. However, in our opinion, this Court cannot aid should not ever into assess ment of. he merit which has been done by the specialist of the subject. The high rank ing police officials have considered the claim of the appellant and have found him not entitled for promotion; Learned coun sel for api ellant has not been able to estab lish that the conclusions so arrived at are perverse or arbitrary and could not bedrawn from the material on record. This vourt cannot substitute its own conclusions in place of the conclusions of the departmen tal committee for granting relief of promo tion to the appellant. Learned counsel has placed reliance in cases of Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh v. State reported in 1917 AWC 259, C. B. Singh v. State reported in 1990 AWC. 988 (D. B.) and Suresh Chandra Sharma v. State of U. P. and others reported in (1992) 1uplbec 590. 6. We have considered the aforesaid cases. However, the cases are distinguish able on facts and we do not find anything helpful to the appellant in the facts of the present case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also challenged the order of the Committee on the ground that 50% marks have been allocated for interview and there was suffi cient chance of abuse and arbitrariness. Learned counsel relied on the case Nani Gopal Sarkar v. Heavy Engineering Corpora tion Ltd. reported in (1990) 3 UPLBEC 1530 and Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. State of UP. reported in (1990) 3 UPLBEC 1800. However, in our opinion, the submission has no substance. It is admitted case that there was no written test of the candidates. The Department fixed 50% marks for as sessment of the service record and 50% for personality test by interview. In absence of written test, the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the marks for in terview should not exceed 15% cannot be accepted. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of D. B. Bakshi and others v. Union of India and others, reported in J. T. 1993 (4) S. C. 180 has held that in prescribing weightage for writ ten and oral test, method of evaluation would vary and cannot be a matter of any straight jacket formula. Weightage to be given to the performance at the interview would depend on the nature of duties, responsibilities and functions to be handled after selection. It cannot be denied that a police Inspector has to discharge very im portant duties and serious responsibilities and he has to control and maintain dis cipline amongst the subordinate police offi cials. The allocation of 50% marks thus can not be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. CM. Ashok Raju reported in J. T. 1994 (5) S. C. 481, has specifically held that in selection promo tion where only viva voce test is provided, no limit can be imposed for prescribing marks for interview. In view of the aforesaid legal position expressed by the Apex Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 9. For the reasons stated above, there is no serious illegality or infirmity in the view taken by the Committee on 19-8-1995 and in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. The Special Appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Special appeal dismissed. .;