SHYAMAL BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the meaning of 'downgrading' is the moot controversy in the present writ petition and whether the remarks, contained in the annual confidential report (hereinafter referred to as "ACR") of the writ petitioner, was downgraded without following the law laid down, in this regard, are the questions, which arise for determination in the present writ petition,

(2.) The material facts are, let me point out, not in dispute and these facts are, in brief, thus: By order, dated 12.6.1981, the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police and he was, vide order, dated 23.6.1986, confirmed in the substantive post of Sub-Inspector of Police (un-armed branch) and was placed at Serial No. 15 of the seniority list. The petitioner appeared in pre-promotional written examination of the Sub-Inspector of Police in armed branch as well as in un-armed branch. By order, dated 8.7.1988, the petitioner was declared successful in the pre-promotional written examination. In the list of successful candidates, who were selected for practical test, the petitioner's name figured at serial No. 46. The final result of the pre-promotional examination was published in the month of February, 1988, and in this list of 22 candidates, the petitioner was placed at Serial No, 14. In the final gradation list of Sub-Inspector of Police (unarmed branch) published on 31.10.2002, which included as many as 410 candidates, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 22. In terms of this list, the private respondents figured below the writ petitioner. The post of Inspector of Police (un-armed) is a promotional post, the minimum qualification for such promotion being eight years of regular service in the grade of Sub-Inspector of Police and passing of pre-promotional examination as prescribed by the Government and conducted by the Tripura Police Organization. By Memorandum, dated 10.6.2004, the Government of Tripura has laid down the procedure to be adopted by the Departmental Promotional Committee (hereinafter called as "DPC"), while considering the question of promotion. The benchmark for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, which falls under Group B, is "Good" and the DPC is required to categorize the candidates on the basis of their service records as "fit" and "unfit". All eligible officers are to be arranged in order of their inter se seniority on attainment of the benchmark. When the order, dated 15.1.2005, was published by the Inspector General of Police (Administration), promoting 41 Sub-Inspector General of Police (un-armed branch) and 5 Sub-Inspector of Police (armed branch) to the posts of Inspector, the petitioner found, contrary to what he had expected, that he had not figured in the said list of promotion. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has, now, approached this court with the help of the present application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking, inter alia, issuance of writ of certiorari setting aside and quashing the impugned order of promotion, dated 15.1.05, and necessary direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law, the case of the petitioner being, briefly stated, that the petitioner has all along worked with great sincerity and dedication, there is no justifiable reason for denying him promotion and if the impugned order is allowed to survive, it would cause manifest injustice.

(3.) The respondents have resisted the prayer of the writ petitioner, the case of the respondents being, in brief, thus : Promotion is not a matter of right, through consideration for promotion to a particular post is, indeed, a right of every employee. The post of Inspector of Police is a post to which promotion can be earned only in accordance with the prescribed requirement, which the DPC is duty bound to follow. Apart from other materials, which are considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, the ACRs of the officer concerned for the last five years and his service records are taken into consideration. The DPC considered the petitioner's case as he fell within the zone of consideration on the basis of seniority. The required bench mark for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police is "Good", for, the post of Inspector of police falls in Grade-B (Gezetted post). In terms of the Govt. Memorandum, dated 10.6.2004, the DPC is required to categorise the candidates, who fall within the zone of consideration, into three groups, namely, "Good", "Very Good" and "Outstanding" and, then, further categorize them into two groups, namely, "fit and "unfit". The names of only those candidates, who and graded as fit, is placed in the select penal in order of their inter se seniority in the feeder grade and those, who are graded as "unfit", are not to be included in the select penal. Seniority is not the sole criterian for promotion to the post, in question. The DPC is a body of experts in the matter and, having considered the service record of the petitioner, the DPC found him "unfit" and, hence, the petitioner was not included in the select penal. Failure of the petitioner to receive the gradation of "fit" is a result of the petitioner's own performance and consideration of the petitioner's case by the DPC was entirely in conformity with the service conditions and as per the relevant recruitment rules/