K. K. GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2314/2004 thereby declining to interfere with the order of promotion of Annexure R-4 on the post of Deputy Inspector General (Jails) on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'the DPC').

(2.) Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant and respondent No.4 were working as 'Class-I Officer' with respondent No.1. A meeting of the DPC consisting of the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home; the Director General (Jails); the Superintendent and Additional Secretary (Home) and the Chairman, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, was held on 8.1.2004 to consider the case of petitioner and respondent No.4 for promotion to the post of 'Deputy Inspector General (Jails)'. After evaluating and assessing the service record of petitioner/appellant and respondent No.4, the DPC found that ACRs grading of appellant and respondent No.4 are equal and being so, recommended name of respondent No.4, who was senior in the cadre, for grant of promotion on the post of Deputy Inspector General (Jails). Feeling dissatisfied with the said recommendation, firstly the appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent authorities concerned and thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order impugned by recording a finding that the petitioner failed to make out a case for interference in the recommendation made by the DPC.

(3.) Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Single Judge failed to consider that the DPC has downgraded ACR grading of the appellant without assigning any reason. Adverse entry in the ACRs, if any, has never been communicated to the appellant in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saji K Sam v. Union of India and ors reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725. He further submits that the DPC failed to properly appreciate the ACRs of the candidates who were within the zone of consideration for promotion on the post of Dy.