STATE OF U P Vs. ANIRUDH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of U. P. has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 11.1.1993 as contained in Armature-1. By virtue of the said judgment and order, the respondent No. 1 Sri Anirudh Rai was held to be entitled to get promotion to the post of C.I. List II with effect from the date his next junior was promoted along with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that Sri Anirudh Rai filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. Lucknow. praying for inclusion of his name in the select list of candidates who were entitled to be promoted to the post of C.I. List II. The select list was prepared for promotion of Sub-Inspectors by the departmental selection committee. The petitioner's case was also considered by the said committee but he was not found fit. His contention was that his claim for promotion had not been considered because of some adverse entries in his character-roll but the representations/appeals against such adverse remarks were still pending. On the other hand, the State Government denied the petitioner's contention and reiterated its stand that the annual entries in the character-roll of the petitioner for the years 1974. 1976 and 1983 indicated his unsatisfactory performance and it was on the basis of these remarks that he was found unsuitable for promotion. On having scanned the allegations and the counter allegations of the parties, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the adverse entries for the years 1974 and 1976 existing in the character roll of the petitioner were communicated to him with delay ; as a consequence he could not avail opportunity of having wriggled out of the said adversity. It was also held by the Tribunal that the selection grade being awarded to the petitioner with effect from 1.5.1986. the adverse entries prior to the sanction of selection grade lost their significance. However, the said view, according to the petitioner, was erroneous as the selection grade was awarded to every Sub-Inspector on completion of ten years of service but promotion was given on senlority-cum-merit basis. Whereas at the time of awarding selection grade, there is no competition with others and all persons who are eligible are granted selection grade, for the purposes of promotion departmental selection committee is constituted and a select list on the basis of the length of service as well as merit is prepared. The eligible candidates are Interviewed by the committee and the entire service record of every candidate is scrutinised. If the departmental selection committee does not find anyone fit for being promoted, it cannot be said that there is violation of any fundamental right. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment and order being contrary to the settled norms and guidelines as contained in G.O. No. 6379-8-A dated 5.11.1965 is erroneous and liable to be quashed.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 filed his counter-affidavit supporting the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. According to him, his claim for promotion was rejected due to adverse comments appearing in his character-roll entries pertaining to the years 1974. 1976. 1977, 1982, 1983 and 1984 even though the adverse remarks for the years 1977, 1982, 1983 and 1984 have been expunged. His appeal preferred against the adverse entries for the year 1976 was still pending. The said entry was communicated to him in the year 1981, i.e., after a lapse of 4 years. Similarly the adverse remarks for the year 1974 were communicated to him after he had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal and the representation filed by him was still pending. The meeting of the selection committee was held on several occasions from July 23, 1985 to December 26, 1985. The answering respondent filed his claim petition in the year 1986. His representation for expunctlon of remarks for the year 1981 was pending even after the selection process before the departmental selection committee was over. Defending the conclusion of the Tribunal. Anirudh Rai reiterated that sanction of selection grade to him amounted to washing off his adverse remarks prior to 1984. Thus, the State Government's petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.