SURENDER SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before us assails the order dated 6 th August, 2011 passed by the respondents informing him that he has not been promoted to the post of Head Constable with the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) denying him promotion to the post of Head Constable. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present petition are noticed hereafter.

(2.) THE petitioner had joined the ITBP as Constable/GD on 11th March, 1993. Between 1993 to 2011, the petitioner was posted at various places in the country. The writ petition claims that in 2011, by an order passed on 25 th July, 2011, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable but was not given charge in this promoted post. He was orally informed that his promotion has not been given effect to because of adverse entry in his annual confidential report for the year 2007. The petitioners representation made on 27 th July, 2011 to the effect that he has never been communicated any adverse remark in the ACR of 2007 and that his promotion ought to be given effect to met with no success. Instead, the respondents issued a letter dated 6th August, 2011 reiterating their above stand that the petitioner was not allowed to take charge to his promoted post because of the adverse grading in the ACR for the year 2007. The petitioner served a legal notice on 18th August, 2011 in view of the above to the respondents to give effect to their order of promotion which was still denied to him by the reply dated 3rd October, 2011. The respondents also placed reliance on Rule 7(7) of the Swamys Compilation on Confidential Reports of Central Government Employees therein.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and given a considered thought to the matter. So far as the legal position is concerned, the same is no longer res-integra and has been settled by the pronouncement of the apex court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (Supra). Several pronouncements prior thereto laying down the applicable principles have been referred to in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (Supra). We find that the court placed reliance on the pronouncement reported at AIR 1988 SC 2060 titled Vijay Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Others wherein it was held that an un- communicated adverse report should not form the foundation to deny the benefits to a government servant when similar benefits are extended to his juniors.