PURNENDUDATTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police from a date earlier than the date from which his juniors were promoted to that post and to maintain lus seniority above the pro forma respondents.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Un-armed Branch) on 26.07.1979 and was confirmed to that post on 12.06.1980. He passed the departmental examination in the year 1987-88 and that he thus became eligible for promotion to the post of inspector of Police (Un-armed Branch) since July, 1997. In the provisional gradation list of S.I. of Police (Un-armed Branch), notified by the Director General of Police, Government of Tripura in Memorandum dated 22.01.2000, his name appears at SI. No. 19 whereas the names of the pro-respondents appears at SI. No. 20 to 34 thereby confirming that he was senior to the pro-respondents. The petitioner states that by the Memorandum dated 3.10.2000, 33 S.I. of police including the pro-respondents were promoted to the posts of Inspector of Police. Since the petitioner was not promoted to that post while his juniors were promoted by the aforesaid Memorandum, he made a series of representations to the respondents but to no effect. It is the case of the petitioner that since he joined the post of S.I. of Police he has been rendering his service quite diligently, efficiently and to the satisfaction of his superiors and that he has been holding different posts like Officer-in-charge of different police stations, DIO, Crime Reader, CTSI, etc. The petitioner goes on to say that since 1999 he has been holding the post of Reserve Officer in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Dhalai District and that during his 20 years of service, no criminal case or departmental proceedings were initiated against him. According to the petitioner, since nothing adverse in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) were recorded against him, it is unimaginable that there could be adverse entry in his service record. The petitioner contends that his service book was never placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) since the same was lying in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Dhalai District which was never sent to the Police Headquarters and that the non-consideration of his service record, which is a vital material, vitiates the selection proceeding of the DPC and as such both the proceedings of the DPC as well as the impugned Memorandum are illegal, which are liable to be set aside.

(3.) The State-respondents resisted the writ petition and filed their counter affidavit wherein it was, inter alia, pointed out that the petitioner was given overall grading of "Average" by the DPC, thereby making him unfit for promotion. The State-respondents further state that according to the procedure laid down in the Memorandum dated 23.03.1992 (Annexure-R-2), the bench-mark for promotion required is "Good" and that for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police with 8 years qualifying service in the post of S.I. of Police is required and so, the ACRs for the last preceding 8 years are required to be examined by the DPC. The State respondents further states that the S.I. of Police, who obtained overall grading equal to or better than bench-mark "Good" are found fit for promotion. In the Un-armed Branch there were 19 vacancies for un-reserved candidates and, 42 eligible candidates, who were within the zone of consideration including the petitioner were considered by the DPC on 03.08.2000. It is also pointed out by the State respondents that the cases of all the candidates who came within the zone of consideration including the case of the petitioner were considered by the DPC in order of seniority with reference to the ACRs for the last proceeding 8 years and other service records. Since the DPC graded the case of the petitioner "Average", he was not recommended for promotion. It was under such circumstances that the petitioner was not given the promotion. According to the State-respondents, since the method of promotion is by selection, merit and suitability are paramount consideration in which seniority merely plays a secondary role. The State respondents deny that there was malice or discrimination in not giving promotion to the petitioner. The State-respondents admitted that the service record was not placed before the DPC but, according to the State-respondents, the same was not required since clearance certificate was obtained from the concerned Superintendent of Police which obviated the necessity for placing the service record before the DPC. It is, therefore, submitted by the State-respondents that there is no infirmity in the proceedings of the DPC which can warrant the interference of this court.