A.R.AMANULLAH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 25.10.84 and, thereafter, promoted as Head Constable and subsequently promoted and working as Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve). It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared in the Promotion Board Test in the year 1991, 2000 and 2005 and came out successful, yet his name was not considered for promotion. It is the further case of the petitioner that persons junior to him were promoted, whereas he was denied promotion. Only in the year 2005, on the basis of the proceeding of the Assistant Commissioner, Salem, the petitioner came to know that ACR pertaining to him was not updated since 1989 to 2000 and, therefore, direction was given to him to have his ACRs updated. It is the case of the petitioner that since the ACRs for the above period was not updated, he was not awarded the requisite marks, which was earmarked for the ACRs due to which he was not promoted. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation to the Director General of Police on 28.6.10. Repeated representations thereafter only culminated in the order of rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the Director General of Police on the ground that he had not come out successful in the Promotion Board Test.

(2.) It is the further case of the petitioner that the non-filling of the ACR was the reason for denial of requisite marks, which was the reason for him being unsuccessful and the fault for non-filling of ACR is only on the department and for their fault, the petitioner cannot be penalised. Though various efforts was taken by the petitioner through representation and filing application under the Right to Information Act to know about the marks obtained in the Promotion Board Test, however, the petitioner was informed that either the marks are untraceable or that the same have been destroyed. In the above backdrop, the petitioner filed W.P. No.2076913 praying a direction to the respondents therein to pass orders on his appeal petition within a particular time frame and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.7.13. In the above backdrop, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the averment that the fault of the department cannot be a cause for the petitioner to suffer from non- grant of promotion and, therefore, prayed for promotion from the year 2000 along with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the submissions as raised in the grounds in support of his plea, stressed that the lacunae on the part of the department in not maintaining the ACR and also non- filling the ACR cannot be put against the petitioner to deny him promotion, when persons junior to the petitioner have been granted promotion. The rejection of the representation by the Director General of Police is only on the ground that he has been unsuccessful in the Promotion Board Test, which is not borne out by record, as the records are not available with the respondents. Therefore, rejecting his case on the said premise is wholly unsustainable. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his and, therefore, prayed for suitable directions as sought for by allowing the petition.