ARUN KUMAR PODDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present writ petition, the Petitioner, who is serving as a Sub -Inspector (Ministerial) seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to give effect to his promotion to the post of Sub -Inspector (Ministerial) retrospectively from 27.09.1996 when his counterparts were promoted with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, security etc. for the intervening period.

(2.) THE immediate reason why the Petitioner appears to have filed the present writ petition is that according to the Petitioner, the Petitioner s counterparts became Inspectors somewhere in the year 2010 -11, but yet again the promotion of the Petitioner was withheld. The representation dated 24.07.2012 (dispatched on 09.08.2012) preferred by the Petitioner to the Director General, CRPF seeking a clarification for his non -promotion alongwith his counterparts was also rejected; and as per the Petitioner, the Petitioner came to know for the first time vide Signal No. P.VII -1/2012 -Min. dated 16.10.2012 issued by the DIGP (Org), Directorate General in response to his representation that he had not been considered for promotion against the vacancies available in the year 1996 -1997 for the post of S.I. (M) for the reason that on the basis of his ACRs for 8 years commencing from 1988 -89 to 1995 -96, relevant for the purpose of being considered in the DPC held for the vacancies of S.I. (M) for the year 1996 -97, he had been assessed unfit by the DPC as he had failed to achieve the prescribed benchmark.

(3.) THE Petitioner, thus, contends that he was all along under the mistaken impression that he could not get promotion due to the punishment of censure awarded to him during 1993 -94, as was conveyed to him at the relevant time by his superiors, and was unaware of the fact that he had been denied the benefit of promotion owing to his alleged failure to achieve the prescribed benchmark in his ACRs for the period 1989 -90 to 1995 -96. Thus the Office Order dated 09.09.2013 vide which the representation dated 02.01.2013 of the Petitioner was rejected by DIGP, CRPF is liable to be quashed.