MAHESH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has not been selected to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police whereas, according to the petitioner, his juniors have been promoted to the said post by superseding him. Those, who have allegedly superseded the petitioner, are arrayed as respondents no. 3 to 21 to the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner's case, as set up in the writ petition, was that he was shown at serial no. 19 in the seniority list, which was accorded sanction on 12-7-1985 and a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Vide order dated 29-8-1986 promotion to the next rank of Additional Superintendent of Police with respect to 38 officers, belonging to the direct and promotee Dy. Superintendent of Police was made with effect from 23-4-1986. THE petitioner should have been figured at serial no. 20 but he was not promoted. A copy of this order is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Amongst 38 promotees 50% are from direct recruits and 50 per cent are from promotee officers THE petitioner was entitled to be promoted amongst the promotee officers because in the list of promotee officers he was at the top. Aggrieved against the said promotion order the petitioner is said to have filed a representation on 6-9-1986 to the Home Secretary to the U. P. Government. A copy of the said representation is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. THE petitioner has stated that his service career is excellent and he has been discharging his duties with devotion and responsibility. To explain his devotion he has cited one or two examples with regard to his duties. THE representation was not decided. THErefore, he submitted another representation on 31-7-1987, a copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. THE said representations were not considered at all, therefore, he submitted last representation on 30-11-1987 for consideration of his earlier representations and for granting him promotion with effect from 23-4-1986. THE petitioner submits that he was at the fag end of his career and he was arbitrarily deprived of promotion which has resulted in great financial loss to him.

(3.) THE Respondents no. 1 and 2 have denied the petitioner's plea that he has any excellent service record. It is stated that in the year 1981-82 he was given an adyerse entry. It is further stated that the D. P. C. is not impleaded as a party. THE promotion of the candidates was to be made after making over-all assessment of their work and judging their suitability. It is stated that some enquiry is still pending against the petitioner with the Anti-Corruption Organisation relating to corruption. However, no document is filed as to which type of enquiry is pending against the petitioner. It ill submitted that the petitioner has crossed Efficiency Bar but that would hoi entitle the petitioner, according to' the respondent no. I and 2, to get promotion.