RICHHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer that I the respondents be directed to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of his case for promotion to the junior scale of Rajasthan Police Service against the vacancies of 1991 -92, ignoring the adverse remarks made La his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) 1984 -85 and, in case he is found I suitable then to promote him to the Junior scale of Rajasthan Police Service benefits regarding seniority, fixation of pay etc.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the petitioner is that he joined the Police Department of the Government of Rajasthan as Sub -Inspector on 1.8.1966. He was promoted as Inspector of Police on 13.3.80. He has passed promotion cadre course while holding the post of Inspector of Police and has been confirmed on that post by order dated 14.5.85. He is eligible to be considered for promotion to the Rajasthan Police Service. He has claimed that in the seniority list prepared for the purpose of the Departmental Promotion Committee, his name appears at Serial No. 49. The name of Shri Birbal Ram Vishnoi appears at Serial No. 46. He has been promoted on the post of Rajasthan Police Service against the vacancies of 1990 -91. The petitioner has stated that 37 vacancies in the ordinary scale of Rajasthan Police Service were available for the year 1991 -92 and since the zone of consideration against these vacancies is two times, the petitioner falls within the zone of consideration. He has pleaded that his service has been throughout satisfactory and he has been given 86 commendation certificates and 26 cash awards during his service career and there is nothing adverse in his A.P.A.R. except for a part of the year 1984 -85. He has a stated that no regular or departmental enquiry or preliminary enquiry is pending against him. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 13.5.1991 and it made certain recommendations for the post of Rajasthan Police Service. (Junior Scale). However, the name of the petitioner has not been included in the list of persons recommended by the DPC which met on 13.5.91. This has happened on account of the adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Report of the petitioner for the year 1984 -85.

(3.) IN reply to the writ petition, the respondents have stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee for 37 vacancies of the Junior Scale of Rajasthan Police Service (1991 -92) was held on 14.5.91. The zone of consideration was three times the number of vacancies for general category candidated and five times for the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Since he was having adverse remarks in his A.P.A.R. for the year 1984 -85 his name has not bee recommended for promotion. The adverse entry was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated, 11.10.89, which was sent for service on the petitioner through the D.I.G. Jaipur Range, Jaipur. The letter of the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Headquarters) was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur, alongwith his letter dated 18.10.89. The Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, Jaipur got served the copy of the letter dated, 11.10.89 upon the petitioner. A receipt on duplicate copy was obtained and was despatched to the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Headquarters) vide letter dated, 1.11.89. The Superintendent of Police kept one copy of the letter on his file. The original letter alongwith the receipt obtained from the petitioner after despatch has been received in the office of the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Headquarters) on 15.11.89, vide receipt No. 113, but, is not traceable and an enquiry in that regard has also been initiated. The non -petitioners, have claimed that no fundamental right vests with the petitioner to claim promotion. He had a right of consideration and that right has been fully recognised and accepted by the non -petitioners. Since his seven years' service record is not satisfactory and he is having adverse remarks for the year 1984 -85, he has not been recommended for promotion. It has then stated that the petitioner has not made any recommended for promotion. It has then stated that the petitioner has not made any representation against the adverse remarks and, therefore, the same have become final. Regarding Commendation Certificates and Cash Rewards it has been stated in para -5 of the reply that such commendation Certificates and cash Rewards are generally available for every incumbent as they are necessary under the Police Force discipline, but, these cash rewards and Commendation Certificates are not sufficient to prove that a person possesses a good record. A minor penalty was also imposed on the petitioner on the basis of an enqiury held under Rule -17 of 1958 Rules.