Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ commanding upon the respondents to give him due seniority in the rank of Inspector, CRPF, from October, 2008 by quashing the order of the DIG (Adm), Special Sector, CRPF, dated 17.03.2011.
(2.) The brief facts, as has been delineated in the writ application, are that the petitioner was initially appointed directly as Special Inspector, (GD) in the Central Reserve Police force in the year 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for Basic Training and after successful training, he was given B Grade. In the year 2008, a Promotion Board was constituted for promotion in the rank of Inspector on the basis of good service records but the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered by the Board in the year 2008 and 2009 inspite of the fact that the petitioner had a good service record. However, the petitioner was promoted in the year 2010 in the rank of Inspector, since the junior to the petitioner were promoted earlier to him, the petitioner being aggrieved by his supersession, submitted representation before the respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-1 to the writ application and the said representation was not considered on the ground that the petitioner failed to secure required marks, because of his performance, therefore, his case was turned down by the D.I.G. (Adm) Special Sector, CRPF for promotion in the rank of Inspector, CRPF, as per the order vide Annexure-2 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2011 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondents are not justified in not giving remarks like 'Very Good' when the performance of the petitioner was found to be up to the mark and without any complaint. Learned counsel further submits that the entry in his service records should have been communicated to the petitioner, so that he would have known about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would have enabled him to improve his work in future and he would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry, if he felt, it was unjustified, therefore, non-communication of the entry amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, therefore, the action of the respondents being arbitrary, are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions, Dev Dutt-versus-Union of India & Ors., 2008 AIR(SC) 2513.;