DASSU TAKKA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the help of the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution 6f India, the petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that he has been unjustly denied promotion and his juniors have been made to supersede him.

(2.) In a nut-shell, petitioner's case may be narrated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Sub- Inspector of Police (hereinafter referred to as "SI") under the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh as far back as on 01.03.78 and since then, he continues to remain in the same post though persons juniors to him have been promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police by various orders passed by the respondent No. 2 from time to time between 1988 and 1989. The petitioner has made several representations to the respondent No. 2, but the same have proved futile. The office of the respondent No. 2, vide order No. PHQ146/SI/, dated 20.07.1982, issued gradation list of 73 UB/AB Sub-Inspectors of Police and in this gradation list, the petitioner has been placed at SI. No. 58 (Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition). By order No.PHQ/SI/ 78/PT, dated 05.05.58, the respondent No. 2 promoted 14 SIs to the rank of Inspector of Police including the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, whose names appear in SI. Nos. 59 to 66 of the said gradation list The petitioner made his representation against the such supersession, the representation so made being on 06.04.88 (Annexure-A/4 to the Writ Petition). By order/ letter No.PHQ/ACR/CON/DT/54, dated 16.5.88 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), the petitioner was informed that his Reporting Officer had recorded some adverse remarks in the petitioner's ACR for the period from 07.03.87 to 24.04.87. The petitioner was asked to submit his representation, if any. within six weeks against the adverse remarks so made. In this regard, the petitioner made his representation (Annexure-A/6 to the writ petition) on 25.08.88, wherein he stated that the said adverse remarks were motivated and made on extraneous considerations. Based on the representation, so made by the petitioner, the adverse remarks were partially modified. This information was communicated to the petitioner by letter/order No.PHQ/ACR/CON/ft, dated 29.11.88 (Annexure-A/8 to the writ petition) issued by the Office of the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, by message No. PHQ/R/144/AC/ 78/ST. dated 10.11.89. respondents No. 8, 9 and 10 were promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police w.e.f. 10.11.89, but the petitioner was, again, denied promotion. By order, No. PHQ/144/SI/78/PT, dated 27.04.90, respondent No. 2 promoted respondent No.7 to the post of Inspector of Police w.e.f. 15.05.90, though respondent No. 17 is junior to the petitioner as the latter's name appears at SI. No. 72 of the said gradation list. Thereafter, by various other orders, the remaining private respondents, who are also junior to the petitioner, were promoted to the posts of Inspector of Police, but the petitioner was denied his lawfully earned promotion. By letter/ order No.PHQ/ACR/CON/DT, dated 07.05.90 (Annexure-A/12 to the writ petition) respondent No. 2 communicated to the petitioner about entry of adverse remarks in his ACR for the period from 01.04.88 to 31.03.89. The petitioner made his representation on the adverse remarks so communicated to him stating to the effect that the remarks were not based on facts. In response to this representation, even the adverse remarks made during the period from 01.04.88 to 31.03.89 were partially corrected. In this way. the petitioner has been made to work in the same post in which he had joined. The petitioner, therefore, claims that the respondents be commanded to accord promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and the orders adversely affecting petitioner's promotional career be set aside and quashed.

(3.) The respondents have filed their affida-vit-in-opposition. the case of the respondents being briefly stated thus: Two meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as "DPC") were held, one in the year 1988 and the other in the year 1991, for considering the cases of eligible candidates for promotion to the posts of Inspector of Police. Though the petitioner's case was considered in the year 1988, he was not found fit for promotion by the DPC due to unsatisfactory service records. The DPC reviewed the case of the petitioner, on 26.07.91. following the petitioner's representation, but upon scrutiny of the petitioner's service record, the DPC found that the petitioner's overall performance had not improved and that he did not merit promotion. The petitioner was accordingly communicated the result of the review by the DPC. Subsequent thereto also, on every necessary occasion, petitioner's case for promotion has been considered by the DPC, but the DPC found the petitioner not fit for promotion and his representations have been considered from time to time. The persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted on merit and in accordance with the recommendations of the DPC, The petitioner has not been unjustly denied promotion. All representations made against adverse remarks entered into the ACRs of the petitioner's as well as representations made against his supersession have been considered, but on account of unsatisfactory and indifferent ACRs of the petitioner, he has not been promoted. The views of the DPC have been based on merit and may not be interfered with.