AJIT NARAYAN MOHAPATRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed inter alia for the following reliefs:

(2.) Heard Mr.U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Gyanalok Mohanty, learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite party nos.1 to 4.

(3.) Writ petition and the prayer based therein raises a question as to if rejection of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Deputy Inspector General on the basis of un-communicated C.C.R. permissible in the eye of law? Referring to the prayer after two stages of amendment being allowed by this Court, Sri Samal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further referring to the C.C.R. for the year 2002-03 marked as "Good" having not been communicated to the petitioner contended that non-communication of C.C.R. for a particular year could not have an adverse effect in the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Additional Deputy Inspector General (A.D.I.G.), Central Industrial Security Force. It is taking this Court to the factual aspect involving herein Sri Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner has been promoted to the post of A.D.I.G. on 2.4.2007, contended that had the non-communicated adverse entry for the year 2002-2003 been ignored, the petitioner would have been promoted at the minimum from 01.02.2006, i.e. since when his immediate junior Mr.Ved Prakash was promoted. Referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vrs. Union of India and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, which was also being considered in the case of Anil Kumar Vrs. Union of India and others, (2019) 4 SCC 276, referring to paragraphs-18 and 20 therein. Sri Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the decisions indicated hereinabove have direct application to the case of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner deserves reliefs sought for.