Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the orders dated 8.9.1998 and 14.10.1998. He has also prayed for expunging the adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report, in short (APAR) of 1994 -1995 and that all consequential benefits be ordered to be given to him since then. Further it has been prayed by the petitioner that the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter, referred to as 'The DPC) held on 23.11.1995, be reviewed and after ignoring the adverse remarks recorded in the APAR in the year 1994 -1995, he may be considered for promotion with all other consequential benefits w.e.f. 23.01.1996, the date from which the non -petitioners had been promoted.
(2.) ON having been selected and recommended by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed as a Member of Rajasthan Police Service, on 29.11.1982. In the order of appointment, the name of the petitioner appeared at S. No. 10 and that of non -petitioner No. 5, appeared at S. No. 11. In the consolidated seniority list of junior scale of Rajasthan Police Service as on 1.7.1987, issued on 30.06.1990, the name of the petitioner appeared S. No. 114 and the names of other junior persons appeared from S. No. 115 -128 (Annexure -1). Under the relevant Rules; namely the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 the lowest post is that of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is in junior scale. The next higher post, under Rule 28 -A(5) read with Schedule of the Rules of 1954 is that of Additional Superintendent of Police (Senior Scale), which is a promotional post to be filled up by 100% promotion on the basis of seniority -cum -merit from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, with at -least five years experience.
(3.) THE petitioner had fulfilled the requisite qualifications for promotion, on completion of five years service in the month of December, 1987 but his turn came up for consideration for promotion, against the vacancies for the year 1995 -1996. The DPC was to meet on 23.11.1995 for considering the promotion from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police to that of Additional Superintendent of Police, in senior scale for the year 1995 -1996. Though, the petitioner was not communicated any adverse remarks in his APAR for the last five years, but he came to know from his own sources that the Superintendent of Police, Kola and Deputy Inspector General of -Police, Kota had entered some adverse remarks in his APAR for the year 1994 -1995. The petitioner then gave a representation on 22.11.1995, informing the DPC about his apprehension that in the APAR of 19941995, S.P. Kota and D.I.G. Kota may have made certain adverse remarks against him. The petitioner had also given copies of the said representation to the Members of the DPC. He had made a request in his representation that the adverse remarks in the APAR be ignored and may not be acted upon till he is given an opportunity to make representation against such remarks and the same is decided after due hearing. The DPC did not take note of the fax message/representation and also did not consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police, on account of adverse remarks in the APAR. The DPC had met on 23.11.1995 and declared twenty one persons for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police. The petitioner, before the recommendations could be forwarded and any steps in furtherance thereof be taken by the Department, submitted another representation on 5.12.1995 to the DPC. However, the DPC ignored the representation and sent its recommendation without any modification.;