KAMLA PRASAD RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the sealed cover procedure followed by the Departmental Selection Committee was justified under the circumstances of the case, and whether the observations and findings recorded by High Court in respect of suitability-cum-merit of the petitioner could be ignored by the Departmental Selection Committee are the short questions that fall for consideration in the present petition filed by the petitioner, sub-Inspector in Civil Police, seeking the relief for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order/recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee dated 31st October, 1971 (Annexure 7-A to the petition), and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to select and promote the petitioner on the post of Inspector In the batch of 1988.

(2.) THE protrayal of the essential facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Civil Police in 1969. No case pertaining to misconduct was registered against him. His integrity was above board and he has obtained 100 rewards for the meritorious services rendered as sub-Inspector and Station Officer Inchargs. As required by G O. No. 6012/Aath-1-1-85/85 dated 22-10-1983 and the G.O. No. 5969/Aath-l-85/85 dated 8th October, 1985, after completing 10 years service, he became entitled to the promotion as Inspector in Civil Police. THEre being no adverse entry, he was working as Station Officer since 1976. THE Departmental Selection Committee held the interview in December, 1988. Apart from two other candidates, respondents 3 to 9 shown in Writ Petition No 2071 of 1989 decided on 21st November, 1990 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) were selected even though they were Junior to the petitioner and had some adverse entries in their character rolls. THE petitioner had to file the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed on 21st November, 1990 and the Selection Committee was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Inspector of Police and accordingly the petitioner and two other candidates were to be promoted. THE petitioner in that petition and two other candidates, however, were not to claim seniority against the candidates selected from 1988 batch. Against that judgment a review petition was filed which was allowed partly by this Court by the judgment dated 27th September, 1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) by which the operative portion In the earlier judgment was modified to the extent that the Selection Committee was to be constituted within one month from the date of filing a certified copy of the order and It was to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Inspector of Police according to the Government Order applicable to the said promotion, and if promoted- the seniority was to be fixed according to law without disturbing, however, the seniority of the candidates shown as respondents 3 to 9.

(3.) SHRI R V. Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents, has filed a counter affidavit and urged;that the sealed cover procedure was correctly adopted by the Selection Committee in the present case and the Selection Committee was not bound by the observations made in the judgment of this Court or the opinion expressed in the first judgment allowing the petition and the second judgment modifying the operative potion of the judgment. Subsequent development or the fresh departmental proceedings initiated would not indicate that the members constituting the Selection Committee were biased. The initiation of contempt proceedings against the senior officers of the department had no impact at all on the members constituting the Selection Committee and keeping the result of the petitioner in the sealed cover. Reliance was placed on a decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sri Kant Chaphekar, (1992) 2 UP LB EC 1380.