RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA, J. - (1.) Petitioner has challenged the letter dated 10.5.2003 (Annexure 3) on the ground that he could not be declared unfit for promotion on the basis that his service records were unsatisfactory.
(2.) MR . Rajendra Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the effect of the punishment of black mark awarded in 1997 lost it's force in the year 2000. He further submitted that petitioner has not been communicated with any other adverse remarks within last five years and, therefore, the other adverse remarks, if any, could not be taken into account. He further submitted that one Harilal Yadav, against whom there were 75 punishments including major and minor and who got only 32 rewards was promoted to the post of Inspector, whereas against the petitioner, there were 36 punishment till 1997 within which 8 were major and 28 were minor and, therefore, if the case of Harilal Yadav can be considered for promotion, the case of the petitioner cannot be discriminated. He further submitted that A.C.P. was given to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.2002. He lastly submitted that petitioner apprehends that his case will not be placed before the next D.P.C. State counsel submitted that by the said letter dated 10.5.2003, petitioner was informed upon his representation that he has not been found fit for promotion on account of unsatisfactory service records.
(3.) IT is settled law that one can claim consideration and not promotion as a matter of right. It appears from the letter dated 10.5.2003 (Annexure 3) that petitioner's case was considered but he was not found fit for promotion.;