JOSEPH ZIMIK Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Mark Khapai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Th. Romel (Jr. to Shri I. Lalitkumar, Sr. Advocate) for the respondent No. 3 (MPSC).

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuing directions to the respondents to promote him to the post of Inspector of Police with retrospective effect from the date his juniors were promoted.

(3.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as per Recruitment Rules, a Sub -Inspector of Police who has 5 (five) years of regular service in the grade, is eligible to be promoted to the post of Inspector of Police and since the petitioner has served for more than 20 (twenty) years as Sub -Inspector of Police, he is eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. As per Final Seniority List published on 18 -06 -1998 by the Director General of Police, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 116 whereas in the Final Seniority List of Sub -Inspectors published on 01 -06 -2009, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 3 and moreover, the petitioner was the senior most amongst the ST candidates in the grade of Sub -Inspector of Police. All his juniors have been promoted to the post of Inspector of Police without the petitioner being promoted. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive any show cause notice from the Police Headquarter (Admn.) about any adverse remarks being recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) and the DPC never considered the case of the petitioner denying his right to be considered and such denial was discriminatory, deliberate and mala fide and it was done to give undue advantage to some for vested interest and to destroy the image of the police force.