Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44143 of 2016
Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working on the post of Constable and a minor punishment of censure entry has been awarded to the petitioner in the 2014. He submits that the period of five years has lapsed since the infliction of the censure entry and as such now the petitioner is entitled for promotion ignoring the censure entry.
He submits that at this stage the petitioner is not pressing the prayer no.1 of the writ petition as during intervening period five years have lapsed and in view of the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-A No.7959 of 2019, Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others and other connected matters decided on 18th September, 2019. In paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court held as under:-
"12. The observations of this Court in the case of Head Constable Ram Babu (supra) appears to have been followed in the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra). In the case of Anil Kumar (supra) also reference is made to circular dated 19.10.2015. This circular has been annexed alongwith counter affidavit filed in the present petition. The circular runs into 11 pages and refers to various pleas made before the Tribunal and also the orders passed by the Tribunal. Having referred to all such facts in the letter dated 19.10.2015 the ultimate prayer made is to grant permission to the department for filing writ petition before the Lucknow Bench. This order, therefore, cannot be treated to be laying down any principle or policy restricting relevance of adverse material only for a period of three years, for the purposes of considering a police personnel for promotion to the next higher post. The guiding principles which are laid down in the applicable circular remains in tune with the Government Order dated 30.6.1993, which is five years and not three years. Petitioners, therefore, would not be justified in seeking consideration of their claim for promotion relying upon the alleged circular dated 19.10.2015. It is otherwise not shown that a period of five years had expired since passing of order awarding censure entry to the petitioners on the date of consideration of their claim for promotion."
The censure entry or adverse entry cannot be considered beyond a period of five years for determining the satisfactory service while considering the claim for promotion in view of the aforesaid judgment.
It is submitted that the five years time has already lapsed and as such in view of the judgment of this Court dated 18th September, 2019 and Government Order dated 30th June, 1993, petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion by respondents after the lapse of five years.
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid judgment of this Court passed in case of Bhupendra Singh (supra). He submits that claim of petitioner for promotion will be considered by respondents in accordance with law in a time bound manner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and judgment passed in case of Bhupendra Singh (supra), it is hereby directed that claim for promotion of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law without considering the adverse/censure entry, which stands lapsed after the expiry of five years. The claim for promotion shall be considered on merits whenever the procedure for next promotion undertaken by the respondents.
With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.11.2022
Bhaskar
