K JEEVAN PRAKASH RAO Vs. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner- K. Jeevan Prakasha Rao was appointed as a Railway Protection Force Constable on 1.5.1989 and posted at Secunderabad Division. He was transferred to Guntakal Division in the month of June 1986. S. Masthanvali and Y.B. Thimma Reddy-respondents 3 and 4 herein were also appointed as Railway Protection Force Constables. The post of constable is a zonal post and the seniority is maintained at the zonal level.

(2.) The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, invited willingness of the employees to the post of Naiks, vide Letter No.G/XP/608/GK/97, dated 21.7.1997. The respondents 3 and 4 were asked to exercise their option. The petitioner was not asked to exercise such an option. He submitted representation dated 9.4.1998 to the 1st respondent ventilating his grievance for not including his name in the promotion list of Naiks. The Railway Board issued Circular No.PC-V/99/1/1/1, dated 1.10.1999 announcing the scheme of Assured Career Programme (ACP) for those, who have put in twelve years of service. Pursuant to the Railway Board's circular, the 1st respondent issued Proceedings No.XP/530/ACR/ Const. 12 years (FO No.151/2000), dated 19.10.2000 granting the ACP benefits to the Constables who have put in 12 years of service. In the annexure to the Force Order No. 151/2000, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.474 and whereas the respondents 3 and 4 were shown at Sl.Nos.136 and 144 respectively. According to the petitioner, he is senior to respondents 3 and 4 and therefore, his name should have been placed above respondents 3 and 4 in the annexure to the Force Order No. 151/2000. He submitted representation to rectify the seniority list annexed to the Force Order No.151/2000. The 1st respondent constituted Departmental Promotion Committee to promote eligible candidates to the post of Head Constables in the scale of Rs.3200/- 4900/- (Non Selection ), as per Rule 70 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The post of Head Constable is not a selection post. According to the petitioner, the service and suitability is the only criterion for promotion to the post of Head Constable. The 1st respondent issued proceedings X/P.530/l/HC/Vol.VII (Force Order No. 169 of 2000) dated 25.11.2000, promoting the respondents 3 and 4 to the post of Head Constable ignoring the petitioner, even though he is senior to them. Therefore, he filed the writ petition seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in promoting respondents 3 and 4 ignoring his claim to the post of Head Constable is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Heard Sri J.M. Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for South Central Railway appearing for the respondents.