K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE writ petition is a challenge to denial of promotion from the post of Sub Inspector to Inspector from the day when his junior was promoted upto the point that the petitioner had been superseded in the promotion to the post of ASI and Sub Inspector when junior Har Narain was promoted earlier. The State accommodated the petitioner's plea and granted to him promotion from the respective dates when the junior was promoted namely to be effective from 28.12.1981 and 28.05.1982. although, the petitioner had been promoted as ASI on 12.03.1983 and as SI from 10.03.1989.
(2.) WHILE Har Narain had been promoted as Inspector on 16.08.1988, the petitioner had not been considered for promotion from that date and the contention for rejection of the petitioner's plea was that as per the instructions issued on 01.07.1981, an employee had to have 70% good reports in the ACR during the relevant period and since he did not have good reports, he could not be so considered. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has three grounds to mount as challenges. One, the criterion that should have prevailed for consideration of promotion made to the petitioner when he was promoted as Sub Inspector on 10.03.1989 was the same also for promotion to the Inspector and if he could have promoted on their own on 10.03.1989, there was no scope for denying the promotion to the post of Inspector during the same period. Two, if good reports were relevant for promotion and a grading less than good would have an adverse impact on his promotion prospects, the same could not have been entered without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain before they were finalized. The petitioner had been served with adverse reports for the year 1984, 1985 and 1986 all of which had been modified or expunged, the details of which have been already given in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition and there was no communication of any other adverse report to subject him to a disqualification for promotion to the next post. Three, the policy taken on 01.07.1991 requiring 70% good reports should be applied only to the service after 1984 -85 and for all the period before 1984 -85, the prevalent instructions of 50% good reports alone could have been relevant. The petitioner could not have been denied of his claim to promotion by looking for 70% good reports for the entire period prior to the date when he was due for consideration for promotion when his junior was promoted.
(3.) AS regards the last point, there has been already an expression of judicial mind by my brother Judge when he gave a direction on 20.02.2014 to the respondents to produce ACR record of the petitioner pertaining to the period of consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would, therefore, state that 70% of the reports must be good for the relevant period before a consideration for promotion when his junior was promoted and it could not be split into two periods i.e. period before 09.05.1985 and period after 09.05.1985. I accede to the plea by the State and I would take it relevant only for first two points which are raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.;