PREM SHANKAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is employed in the Central Reserve Police Foree and is posted in 96th Battalion in Ajmer. He participated in the various events of All India Police Games and has won medals in individual as well as team events. All India St. John. Ambulance Competition was held in Jamshedpur (Bihar) from 8/11/1989 to 13/11/1989. For having secured 100% marks in the competition he was awarded gold medal for his individual performance as well as for his performance in the team. In support of his assertion that gold medals were awarded to him, the petitioner has placed on record certificates Annexures 1 and 2. THE petitioner submits that for his performance he was given cash award of Rs. 1,500. Out of this, Rs. 1,000/- was given for his individual performance and Rs. 500/- for his performance in the team event. In terms of the incentive Sheme introduced by the respondents for giving out of turn promotion to the outstanding sportsmen, the petitioner made applications on more than one occasions for being promoted as Sub-Inspector. His request was, however, turned down by the competent authority. A representation made by the petitioner to the Director General, CRPF was also rejected. Having failed in his attempt to persuade the authorities of CRPF to give him out of turn promotion, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus. THE basis of the claim made by the petitioner is that he secured 2 gold medals in the competition held at the national level and, therefore, he has a right to be promoted as Sub-Inspector in accordance with the incentive scheme. He has also pleaded that a large number of other persons have been given out of turn promotion although some of them did not even qualify to be given out of turn promotion under the incentive scheme. THE respondents have opposed the writ petition. In the first place, they have raised preliminary objection to the entertainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to avail remedy of revision available to him. In the second place, they have stated that the incentive scheme for promotion to the sportsmen was introduced by the organisation after approval of the Additional Director General. THE candidature of the petitioner was considered for the grant of cash award and in accordance with Rule 1, he was given a sunt of Rs. l,000/ -. THEy have also referred to the incentive scheme circulated on 23. 10. 1987 under the instructions of the Director General, CRPF. According to them, promotion is given from the post of Head Constable to that of Sub-Inspector only, if a person wins two gold medals in individual skill and since the petitioner failed to secure two gold medals, he has no right to be given promotion. Regarding the other persons who have been given out of turn promotion, the respondents have submitted that in some cases promotion had been accorded before the introduction of the incentive scheme vide Circular dated 23/10/1987. In the case of other persons, the competent authority had considered the performance of the individual concerned and it came to the conclusion that promotion deserved to be given out of turn to the individual concerned.

(2.) BEFORE I consider the merits of the case, I deem it proper to first deal with the preliminary objection raised by respondents that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground that the. petitioner has failed to avail alternative remedy of revision. This objection has been mentioned by me only to be rejected summarily. In the first place, the remedy of revision has not been considered to be alternative remedy even by the Apex Court in Collector of Customs, Cochin vs. A. S. Bava (1) and Beni Shankar vs. Surya Kant Secondly, the writ petition has not only been entertained by the Court, but has been heard on merits. After having heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length on merits of the case, I find little justification for non suiting the petitioner on the technical plea of availability of alternative remedy. Thirdly, the Court has the discreton to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy. There is no constitutional embargo against entertainability of a writ petition merely because alternative remedy is available and I do not find any justification to import such restriction on the exercise of power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by sheer implication.

(3.) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector, CRPF with effect from 13/11/1989 and to give him all consequential benefits. Petitioner's pay shall be notionally fixed in the grade of the post of Sub-Inspector with effect from 13. 11. 1989. Other benefits shall be admissible to the petitioner from the date of this order.