NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a Circle Inspector of Police in the service of the 1st respondent challenges non inclusion of his name in the select list for appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police drawn up by Departmental Promotion Committee for the year 1992. Challenge is also against an order passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee rejecting his petition for review of the list.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1974. He was then promoted as Circle Inspector of Police on 7-4-1983. The Departmental Promotion Committee prepared a select list of qualified Circle Inspectors of Police and published the same after approval by the Government on 14-1-1992. Ext. P1 select list would show that petitioner has been superseded as three of his juniors namely Bhaskaran Ponnan, V.C. Soman and T.K. Venugopalan. They had been included as serial Nos. 28, 29 and 30, while petitioner's name was not included. It is contended by the petitioner that the confidential reports of the petitioner for the previous years including for the period of three years preceding the date of meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee to draw up the select list of Circle Inspectors of Police were clean and constantly outstanding, except for a short period during the year 1990. It is alleged that the petitioner has the distinction of being the recipient of three Cash Rewards and 23. Good Service Entries during the above period. Two adverse remarks had been made for the period from 1-1-90 to 4-6-90 and 14-1-90 to 30-3-1990 have been noted by Sri Viswanath Pillai, Superintendent of Police and Sri.K.P. Somarajan, D.I.G., respectively. Ext. P2 is Annual Confidential report on Circle Inspector. It is seen from Ext. P2 that another Superintendent of Police as reporting the petitioner as a good officer in his Confidential Report for the immediate later ie., on 5-6-1990 to 31-12-1990.

(3.) The petitioner made a representation before the Inspector General of Police under Ext. P3 dated 6-6-91 to get the adverse remarks in his confidential reports expunged. There was some delay in passing orders on his representation. He therefore sent reminders Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) dated 24-3-1992 and 28-5-1992. In the meanwhile, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 11-12-1991 and prepared Ext. P1 select list superseding the petitioner as mentioned earlier. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation dated 11-2-1992 (Ext. P4) before the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee against the supersession. The above representation was rejected by a cryptic reply that the petitioner is superseded on valid ground, therefore, his appeal was rejected. After receipt of Ext. P5 the petitioner received another communication dated 10-10-1992 (Ext. P6) directing him to be present before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 20-12-1992. The petitioner presented himself before the D.P.C. and brought to the notice of the D.P.C. his excellent service record and contended that the adverse remarks made against him are unjustified. He also brought to the notice of the D.P.C. that a petition before the Inspector General of Police for expunging the adverse remarks is pending. Ext. P7 is a copy of the written submission which he made before the D.P.C. and Ext. P7(a) is the details of the rewards awarded to him.