BALJINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion as Deputy Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force (for short 'C.R.P.F.') with effect from 10.1.1998 despite the fact that he could not achieve the prescribed bench-mark i.e. "Good" is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed by him for quashing communication dated 4.2.1999 (Annexure P-3) and 31.1.2002 (Annexure P-4) and for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to upgrade the grading given in his Annual Confidential Report (for short, 'A.C.R.') for the year 1996-97 from 'Average' to 'Good/ 'Very Good' and direct them to appoint him as Deputy Commandant w.e.f. 10.1.1998.

(2.) The petitioner joined service as Assistant Commandant in C.R.P.F. on 20.8.1992. After five years, he was conveyed adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the period from 1.4.1996 to 14.2.1997. The representation made by him against the adverse remarks was accepted by the superior reviewing officer, but final grading i.e. 'Average' was retained. The decision of the accepting authority was conveyed to the petitioner by Additional Director General, North East Zone, C.R.P.F., Chandigarh vide letter dated 28.5.1998 (Annexure P-2). In the meanwhile, his name was considered in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, 'D.P.C.') held on 19.12.1997 for promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant. The D.P.C. did not recommend his name for promotion because he failed to achieve the prescribed bench- mark, i.e., 'Good' and persons junior to him in the cadre of Assistant Commandants were promoted. "On receipt of communication dated 28.5.1998, the petitioner made representation dated 7.6.1998 for re-consideration of his case for promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant. The D.P.C. re-considered his candidature in its meeting held on 17.11.1998, but did not recommend him for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted because he again failed to achieve the prescribed bench-mark. His name was again considered in the meeting of the D.P.C. held on 9.4.1999 for making recommendations for promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant against the vacancies which had become available in the meanwhile. This time, his name was included in the list of suitable candidates because he had earned 'Very Good' report for the year 1997-98. The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee was accepted by the competent authority and vide order dated 21.5.1999 he was promoted as Deputy Commandant.

(3.) After his promotion as Deputy Commandant, the petitioner submitted representation dated 2.8.1999 for fixation of his seniority above those, who were junior to him in the cadre of Assistant Commandant, but were promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant w.e.f. 10.1.1998 on the recommendations of the D.P.C. which met on 19.12.1997. His plea was rejected by the competent authority and this was conveyed to him by Additional Deputy Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Chandigarh vide letter dated 31.1.2000 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner served notice of demand for justice dated 6.10.2000 (Annexure P-5) through his Advocate but failed to evoke any response from the respondents.