BIMAL MOTILAL RAJVANSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner came to be appointed as PSI in the services of the State Government, Home Department, vide order, dated 23.7.1975. It is his case that he has been permenently absorbed in the said post by order, dated 19.2.1978 and was serving as PSI since then. It appears that some adverse remarks were posted in his confidential dossier for the years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. Such adverse remarks were not actually adverse but could be construed as mixed remarks and the petitioner keeping such adverse remarks in his mind acted very efficiently and thereafter no adverse remarks were communicated to him. In the year 1989 vide order , dated 24.6.1989 persons junior to the petitioner were promoted to the post of PI (unarmed) though in favour of such persons there were adverse remarks and departmental enquiry and/or criminal proceedings were pending. Such persons were admittedly junior to the petitioner and the petitioner was left out and was not promoted to the post of PSI. The petitioner admittedly was at Sl. No. 802 in the seniority list while the persons who came to be promoted to the post of PI and who were junior to the petitioner were posted at Sl. Nos. 854, 1087 and 1279 in the gradation list. The post was reserved for SC candidate and it was roster post meant to be filled by the SC Candidate. Though the petitioner was a SC candidate eligible for promotion to the post of PI from the post of PSI (unarmed) he was not promoted to the post to which he was otherwise entitled. The petitioner, thereupon, made various representations including the one on 25th June, 1989 and 28th June, 1989, but to his utter surprise there was no response and the petitioner unfortunately suffered violation of his fundamental right of being treated equally in the matter of employment and was thus denied promotion to the post to which he was otherwise entitled.

(2.) Vide Order, dated 20.2.1992 the Director General of Police promoted the petitioner to the post of Police Inspector (unarmed). The petitioner, thereupon, made representation to give him deemed date of promotion from the day persons junior to him were promoted, but, once again, it fell on the deaf ears and the petitioner was not promoted to the post to which he was otherwise entitled. In reply to various representations made by the petitioner, the D.G.P. vide his reply, dated 20.2.1993 rejected the representation of the petitioner to give him deemed date of promotion from the day from which he ought to have been promoted, i.e., even the persons junior to him were promoted to the post of Police Inspector. The petitioner thereafter made repeated representations to the superior authority, namely, Additional Chief Secretary for redressal of his grievance but he was simply informed that his representation was rejected by the Government and nothing could be done in the matter.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner to get promotion to the post of Police Inspector is stoutly resisted by the IGP by filing affidavit-in-reply of one Mr. A.K. Bhargava, Spl. I.G.P. (Admn). It is his case in the affidavit-in-reply that the petition of the petitioner was liable to be rejected as none of his rights was violated and that he was not entitled to promotion to the post of PI from that of PSI. He referred to the adverse remarks posted in the confidential dossier of the petitioner between 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 as well as for the year 1986.-87. It was his case that the record of the petitioner discloses that he had not made any representation to the competent authority against such adverse remarks and that such adverse remarks have become confirmed and therefore he was not entitled to the promotion to the post of PI. It was admitted that the petitioner belonged to SC and figured at SI. No. 815 in the gradation list of PSI (unarmed) published on 1st January, 1988. It is stated that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Selection Board for promotion in the meeting of the Selection Board held in the month of April, 1989, but he was not considered fit for promotion due to poor/adverse remarks, and therefore, he was not placed in the select list because he was not brought on select list on the ground of poor average record and accordingly he was not promoted to the post of PI while persons junior to him were promoted. It is his further case that thereafter when the petitioner was found fit for promotion his name was brought on select list and he was promoted to the post of PI. It is further stated that for the purpose of consideration for promotion it was not shown that the records of last five years of the employee were required to be seen and it was further stated that entire service record was required to be considered at the time of promotion. The progress of the employees over a series of year is to be considered and judgment is to be formed after careful examination of the confidential dossier. It was stated that criteria for promotion to the post of PI (unarmed) was and is proved merit and efficiency under the Rules, more particularly, Rule 53 of Gujarat Police Manual (Vol. I). It was therefore stated that since criteria was proved merit and efficiency adverse remarks placed in the dossier would play a role and that the petitioner was therefore not found fit for promotion to the post of PI. It was admitted that though departmental enquiry was instituted against juniors of the petitioner they were promoted to the higher post, but it was stated that every individual was considered on his positive merit, and therefore, the petitioner can not justify his case by comparing his case with those of his juniors. It was further stated that the Selection Board consists of three members and after perusal of service records it considered the fitness/unfitness of employee for promotion to the post of PI and only those possessing merit are brought on the select list and promoted at per their placement in the select list. It is therefore submitted that if the petitioner was not selected by the Selection Board he was not entitled to any deemed date of promotion. It is also stated that the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held in 1991 for considering cases of promotion as per rules and regulations and the case of the petitioner was reviewed/examined and he was found suitable for promotion to the post by the Departmental Promotion Committee, and therefore, he was promoted to the post of Police Inspector.