YOGINDER ANAND Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the promotion of private respondents as Senior Superintendent of police on the ground that they were all junior to him and did not possess any better merit so as to justify his supersession. The only reason for this arbitrary action, according to the petitioner, is that he had earlier challenged his transfer from Jammu to Anantnag (Kashmir) by order dated 1.5.1993 which was stayed by this Court on 12.8.1993 in SWP No. 894/1993 and contempt proceedings had to be initiated for compliance of the stay order. This, it is alleged, offended the official respondents who were biased against him and acted accordingly in denying him the promotion.

(2.) THE allegation of bias is founded on the plea that he filed SWP No. 894/1993 challenging his transfer from Jammu to Anantnag in which following order was passed on 12.8.1993:

(3.) THIS according to the petitioner, influenced the Selection Committee which ignored his excellent service record while promoting his juniors. The first question is, has the petitioner pleaded bias and if so against which member of the Selection Committee? It is settled law that allegation of mala fides or bias has to be specifically pleaded and supported by material before the other side is called upon to rebut the same. It is also settled that charge of mala fide can be made only against an individual and not an office. Admittedly, none of the members of the Selection Committee have been impleaded by name, besides the Director General. So the allegation of mala fides can not be investigated on the mere ipsi -dixit of the petitioner who has failed to identify the officers who were biased against him. Moreover, bias has to be pleaded and proved by the petitioner as observed by their lordships of the Apex Court in the following decisions: