C. KUMARAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the order made in W.P.No. 3873 of 2007 dated 12.10.2012, wherein the appellant prayed to quash the order of the first respondent dated 22.8.2005 as well as the endorsement issued by the second respondent dated 31.7.2006 rejecting the claim of promotion to the appellant as Sub-Inspector (AR), Chennai City for the year 2002 with all consequential benefits. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 12.10.2012, against which this writ appeal is filed.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the award of five marks for 53 Rewards out of 10 marks is not correct and award of 10 marks out of 30 in the Assessment of Service based on personal file (ACR report) for five years is also not proper and the appellant is entitled to get more marks. Learned Counsel submitted that if 0.5 marks is added under any one of the head, the appellant will reach the cut-off marks of 60. The learned counsel also filed additional typed set of papers with supporting affidavit containing personal reports (ACR entries) for the period from 23.1.1998 to 31.3.1998; 1.4.1998 to 31.4.1999; 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000; 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001; and 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002 and submitted that for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002 appellant was graded "outstanding", however he was awarded only 4 marks, as if his grading was "Above average". The learned counsel also pointed out that for grading "good" in the year 2001, the respondents have awarded 6 marks and hence the grading "outstanding" having weightage of more than good, appellant is entitled to be awarded with 6 marks for the year 2002, but was awarded only 4 marks treating the grading as "Above average" and the same is contrary to the records and arbitrary.