NARESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: - "(i) To issue suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent to open the sealed covers respecting the promotion of the petitioner and it found qualified then to promote him as Inspector in the police. (ii) To issue such other suitable writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as emerged out from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub -Inspector on 15.10.1982 and is presently working as S.O. Lohaghat, district Champawat. A criminal case no. 340 of 1997, under Sections 466, 471, 191, 193, 201, 218 and 120 -B IPC read with Section 3(1) 8 of the SC/ST Act was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Khatima, district Udham Singh Nagar. The State government vide letter No. 983/XX (3) -05/Police/2007 dated 10.07.2007 granted permission to C.I.D. to initiate prosecution against the petitioner. The petitioner alongwith other Sub -Inspectors was considered for promotion on the post of Inspector but was not granted promotion due to pendency of aforesaid criminal case. On 18.08.2008 the petitioner represented to the respondents regarding his grievance and prayed that he be given the benefit of promotion in the light of the relevant Government Order dated 13.05.2003 bearing No. 1595/Karmink -2/2002, but in vain. On 11.11.2008, the petitioner sought some information under the Right to Information Act and prayed for the issuance of the list of Sub -Inspectors, who were considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The same was supplied to the petitioner same day but it did not mention anything about the petitioner. On 22.12.2008, the petitioner again sought details about himself under the Right to Information Act and on 22.12.2008 the petitioner was informed that sealed cover procedure had been adopted in his matter. A list of candidates alongwith marks was also supplied to the petitioner in which the petitioner was placed at serial no. 12 with the endorsement that result is sealed. The names of Shri Mohan Chandra Durgapal and Shri Surendra Singh Bisht were placed at serial no. 17 and 18 respectively. These two persons were promoted as Inspector inspite of the fact that prosecution had been initiated against them after sanction and trial against them was going on in the judicial courts. On 20.01.2009, the petitioner again represented to the respondents praying that he be given his due promotion but all his prayers have fallen on deaf ears. Hence present petition.

(3.) THE respondents in their counter affidavit have admitted that the petitioner of the basis of his seniority was found suitable for promotion but due to pendency of criminal case, sealed cover procedure was adopted in the matter of petitioner as per G.O. No. 1595/Karmik -2/2002 dated 13.05.2003.