S. MALLIKHA Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Circular Memorandum dated 8 October, 1994 prescribing the method of Maintenance of Personal Files and initiation of Confidential Report was superseded by the Circular Memo dated 11 January, 2000, notwithstanding the fact that the subsequent Circular Memo was not in super session and it was only a revised format issued for writing the confidential report. The unsuccessful writ petitioner has come up with this review petition on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner. We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed directly as Deputy Superintendent of Police, pursuant to the selection made by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner joined duty on 26 May, 1997 and served in different capacities. She was promoted as Superintendent of Police on 7 September, 2006. There were 10 vacancies in the Indian Police Service (IPS) under the State cadre. Though the petitioner was fully eligible for consideration to I.P.S., she was denied appointment on the ground that there was an adverse entry against her during the relevant period from 01.04.2004 to 20.01.2005. Though the Reporting Officer and the Scrutinizing Officer recorded that the overall rating was "Average", it was reviewed by the Inspector General of Police, Northern Zone, who was the Accepting Authority. The said authority disagreed with the remarks made by the Reporting Officer and the Scrutinizing Officer and the overall rating of the petitioner was mentioned as "Very Good". While considering the candidature of the eligible officers for recommendation to the Central Government for conferment of I.P.S., the name of the petitioner was omitted by the Government on the ground that the Inspector General of Police has no authority to review the Confidential Report and upgrading the overall rating as "Very Good". The officers, junior to the petitioner were all conferred with I.P.S. The claim of the petitioner was negatived only on the ground of overall rating recorded by the Reporting Officer, which was accepted by the Scrutinizing Officer.