SHOWKAT HUSSAIN MIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a Constable (Mechanic) working as Electrician with Armed wing of the State Police after his appointment on 22.06.1982 on substantive basis. In 1991, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee various police personnel in transport Workshop Cadre, were promoted as Head Constables and Selection Grade Constables. Respondents 4 to 10, junior to petitioner were promoted as Selection Grade Constables vide order dated 11.03.1991 (Annexure -p3). The petitioner was left out and not promoted.

(2.) THIS order 120 of 91 dated: 11.03.1991 as also promotion of respondents 4 to 10 juniors to the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) PETITIONER alleges that the promotion to selection Grade has to be according to seniority/merit. Petitioner is senior to the promoted respondents 4 to 10, as is evident from seniority list (Annexure -P2). The petitioner has earned a recommendation certificate in 1987. His conduct is good. Petitioners character roles are also good and satisfactory, in so far as if there were any adverse remarks or adverse entries in his ACRs/APRs, same would have been conveyed to him, therefore, he presumes that his ACRs are not adverse to him. For promotion to the post of Selection Grade Constable, neither any written test nor viva -examination is prescribed or held. No minimum qualification marks are prescribed for the purpose. No criteria or norm is laid or adopted for giving promotions to the higher grade of selection grade constable posts to eligible constables. Though on seniority, merit and suitability he deserved to be promoted, yet he was denied grade promotion illegally without any justifiable reason. The petitioner has not been given equal treatment with those who were equally placed and circumstanced as the petitioner for purpose of the promotion in question.