MIR NAIMATHULLA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Sub-inspector from the date his juniors were promoted i.e., with effect from Force Order 148/84 dated 19-10-1984 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) In this writ petition, Sri K.Laxminarasimham, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the promotion to the petitioner was denied in the year 1984 on the ground that for the years 1982 and 1983, his Annual Confidential Reports contained adverse remarks. Mr. Laxminarasimham points out that the adverse remarks of Annual Confidential Report of 1982 were never communicated to the petitioner and hence, they cannot be taken into consideration. The adverse remarks for 1983 were written by an officer, who is not competent to write the remarks, because the petitioner worked under him only for less than six months period. Under the rules, an Officer under whom the incumbent worked for less than six months need not writ the confidentials and if he writes the confidentials, he will have to consult his predecessors and than make the endorsements. Such a thing was not done in this case. He also points out that the adverse remarksof 1983 were communicated to the petitioner subsequently after the promotion exercise was completed and they were actually communicated on 15-1-1985 under Annexure-XIII. On the representations made by the petitioner, all the adverse remarks for the year 1983 excepting the remark 'integrity very doubtful' were set aside by the higher authorities. But none of the higher authorities considered the question whether Mr. Kotkar who wrote the ACR for 1983 is competent to writ the ACR for the year 1983 because admittedly, the petitioner served for less than three months under that Officer. Reliance is placed upon Instruction No.4 to the Annual Confidential Reports of the Railway Protection Force. That instruction reads as follows:-

(3.) In the present case, the Officer, who wrote the Annual Confidential Report never followed this instruction. Admittedly, the petitioner served under him for about 45 days or so i.e., much less than the prescribed period of six months.