SHAM LAL BALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , an Assistant Sub -lnspector (ASI) in the Police Department, has been left out of "List E" for promotion to the post of Sub -Inspector (Si). Feeling aggrieved he has filed this petition to challenge the promotion of respondents 5 to 13 to the post of SI and for a direction to the official respondents to promote him to the post.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that List -E is "ordinarily" prepared on the basis of seniority and that being senior to respondents 5 to 13, there was nothing to exclude him from the list. It is also submitted that he was conveyed adverse remarks for the years 1982 -83 and 1 8.1983 to 31.3.1984 beyond the prescribed period under rules against which he had taken appeal which remained pending consideration before the Competent Authority. Therefore, such adverse entries could not have constituted a consideration for preventing him in figuring into List -E Petitioner also challenges the constitution of the selection committee vide PHQ Order No. 1386 of 1986 of dated 7.11.1916 on the plea that it is outside the scope of the Police Rules 382 to 399 and thus illegal Support for this is derived from a Division Bench judgment of this court in Prithipal Singhs case.

(3.) IN their reply the official respondents have taken the stand that List -E was prepared by the selection committee constituted vide PHQ order No. 1386 of 1985 on the basis of criteria under which APRs of Category "A" were alloted 3 marks. Category "B" 2 marks and Category "C" 1 mark. It is pointed out that Petitionerâ„¢s APRs were graded in Category C and in all he was able to secure only 14 marks as against 16 qualifying marks It is not denied that petitioners appeal against the adverse remarks is pending consideration before the Competent Authority or that the adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner beyond the prescribed time.