M.R.Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is serving as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Punjab. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been promoted as Officiating Superintendents of Police though they are stated to be junior to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged their order of promotion on the ground that he had a better record of service and that his name was not duly considered at the time when respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted as Officiating Superintendents of Police. In the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been averred that the petitioner was duly considered at the time when respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted. The learned counsel for the State has produced before me the official record which shows that the case of the petitioner vis -a -vis respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had been properly considered. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim any violation of his right guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE office note has taken notice of the entire record of service of the petitioner. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has crossed two efficiency bars in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and, therefore, the earlier record of service of the petitioner could not have been taken into consideration and even if it was to be taken into consideration it had to be accepted as good. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on The State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal : 1970 SCR 375. When a public servant comes at the stage of the efficiency bar, the competent authority is called upon to take decision whether the public servant was efficient enough to cross the efficiency bar or not. If a conscious decision in that behalf is taken then the earlier defaults or acts of misconduct on the part of the public servant are deemed to have been condoned by the master. The public servant can thereafter not be punished on the basis of his earlier record of service. This is in nut shall the effect of the decision rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal (Supra). However, when the case of a public servant is considered for future promotion vis -a -vis his colleagues then it is open to the competent authority to take the entire record of service of the public servant into consideration for judging his comparative merit. This is precisely what has been done in the instant case. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not and indeed cannot exercise appellate powers over the decision of a competent authority relating to the selection of a public servant for the promoted rank. If the case of the public servant vis -a -vis his colleagues has been properly and fairly considered by the Government, the only course open to this Court is to honour the decision of the competent authority.
(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, this petition deserves to be dismissed with costs and I order accordingly.;