JAMEED AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RELYING upon a Division Bench judgment of this court passed In Writ Petition Nos. 296, 297 of 1972 on 27.4.1977 the petitioners seek the quashing of E -List by which respondents 3 to 44 have been included in promotion list -E of the District Executive Force to the exclusion of the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners submit that they are governed by the rules embodied in Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual 1960 prescribing procedure and method of promotion from one rank to the other from J&K Police Force. Rule 382 provides for selection tampered by seniority, efficiency and honesty. According to rule 390 of the aforesaid rules, the respondent No 2 is under an obligation to approve the list of Assistant Sub -Inspectors known as promotion list -E for promotion to post of Sub -Inspectors of police. Rule 382 (3) prescribes procedure and maintenance of promotion list A, to F including list -E, which according to the petitioners have to be prepared under rules 390, 392 (I) and 393 of the Police Rules. The respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order ignoring the petitioners claim for being included in the promotion list -E, and the said order which was passed as a result of selection made by the Departmental Promotion Committee was liable to be quashed because the said committee did not observe the criteria as laid down by the respondent No 2 in the selection of candidateâ„¢s for promotion to list E to the exclusion of the petitioners. One of the petitioners even filed an appeal for the redress of his grievances which was not decided forcing the petitioners to file the writ petition. It is submitted that the very constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee for making selection for promotion to List E was in violation of the rules as held by this court in case of Bhagat Isher Dass (supra) rendering the impugned order liable to be quashed. Consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the case of the petitioners being not in accordance with the rules was not a valid consideration which rendered the order impugned liable to be quashed. The impugned order is also alleged to be passed in colourable exercise of power and malafide besides being in violation of the rules. The impugned order is alleged to be contrary to the provisions of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution as discriminatory treatment is stated to have been meted out to the petitioners because of the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee, it is further submitted that the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee was also bad because M.A Nomani the AIG, was a member of the Departmental Promotion Committee and in making the selection one of the candidates happened to be his brother -in -law.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 it has bean stated that the writ petition was not maintainable as no fundamental right or statutory right of the petitioners was infringed and as the petitioners have availed of the alternative remedy of filing an appeal, they were not justified in approaching this court without waiting for the decision of the appeal. It is submitted that the respondents 3 to 44 were included in the list -E as the petitioners were not considered fit to be included in that list after testing their claims objectively. The Departmental Promotion Committee strictly followed the criteria laid down in annexure I attached with the counter affidavit and objectively tested the petitioners and respondents 3 to 44, besides applying their mind to their service record as well. The good and bad entries were considered for both the parties dispatiently. The petitioners utterly failed to come to the standard and could not give a satisfactory account of their professional knowledge in the oral questions and tests put to them. Rule 390 was strictly followed for preparation of list -E. The respondent No 2 has to approve the ASIs for insertion in the list -E and to accord such approval on the basis of merit, efficiency, honesty of the concerned officials, the respondent No 2 had considered it just and proper to appoint a Departmental Promotion Committee of competent officials of repute and to examine the claimants for that purpose. There has not been any violation of the law laid down by this court in Writ petitions No. 296 & 197 of 1972 relied upon by the petitioners Tie facts of the present case differed from those which were considered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Baghat Isher Dass Vs. State wherein list F was involved. The approval for inclusion of the names of respondents 3 to 44 was accorded on the basis of efficiency, honesty and seniority considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The service record of the petitioners did not indicate that they had rendered meritorious and honest service to the department as claimed by them and were found unfit for selection because they did not fair well in the vivo -voce and oral test held by the Departmental Promotion Committee headed by respondent No. 2. No discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioners. There has not been any violation of any fundamental right. The allegations or malafides levelled against Mr. M.A. Nomani, AIG have been denied on his affidavit.