ALI MOHD. BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievances of the petitioner commenced in the year 1968, when he was not placed in List 'E' which would enable him for being promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector of police (SI for short). The stumbling block in not placing him the 'E' list was that he had suffered two major and one minor punishments. He was, subsequently, promoted and appointed to the next higher post/rank. By now he has retired from service on superannuation.

(2.) The petitioner, after finding that respondent No.3, who had suffered 3 major and two minor punishments and was junior to him in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector of police (ASI for short), was placed in 'E' list and promoted to the rank of SI in the year 1968,' filed representations seeking redressal of his grievances. In this regard, it is submitted that Under Secretary to Govt. Home Department vide his communication bearing No. Home/29/G/91-PR-III dated 10-06-1992 addressed to the Director General of Police, highlighted the issues referred to hereinabove and stated that as no reasons have been recorded for not promoting the petitioner to the rank of SI in the year 1968, so his (petitioner's) case be considered for promotion as SI in the year 1968 when his juniors were promoted. However, grievances of the petitioner were not redressed which prompted him to approach the Court by medium of SWP 1486/95. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Court vide its order dated 01-02-1996 with the direction to respondent No.2 therein to consider and dispose of the aforementioned communication within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order and inform the petitioner about the decision taken. As the respondent No.2 had, allegedly, not implemented the judgement, the petitioner filed a Contempt petition 167/96 but same was dismissed for non prosecution on 29-01-2004 as nobody appeared for petitioner in the matter. However, petitioner was given liberty to approach the Court if his grievances were not redressed. Thereafter the petitioner filed another contempt petition 308/06, wherein statement of facts was filed and a stand was taken by the respondents that communication dated 10-06-1992 was considered in the light of the DPC norms, vis-a-vis service record of the petitioner where it emerged that the petitioner had suffered one major and two minor punishments and as such he was declared to be unfit for promotion to the post of SI in the year 1968 when the DPC was convened for making promotion to the said post. This contempt petition was also dismissed by the Court vide order dated 15-09-2007 giving liberty to the petitioner to invoke appropriate remedy against the order of consideration. It is how the writ petition on hand is filed.

(3.) On notice issued, respondents filed objections. However, after admission of the writ petition as the counter affidavit was not filed, the Court vide order dated 24-11-2010 allowed one week's last and final opportunity for filing counter affidavit and it was made clear that if counter affidavit is not filed within the stipulated period, right to file the same shall stand closed and case will be processed for final hearing. Note of the Registry reveals that counter affidavit has not been filed, therefore, matter has come up for final hearing.