Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pintu Deb Barman vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 December, 2023
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
WPA 22580 of 2011
Pintu Deb Barman
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Dyutimoy Paul
Mr. Debanjan Saha
For the respondents : Mr. Kumaresh Dalal
Ms. Hasi Saha
Heard on : 6th December, 2023
Judgment on : 6th December, 2023.
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:
1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking
implementation of a scheme for grant of promotion.
2. The petitioner claims to be a Constable of the Central Reserve Police
Force and at the relevant point of time was posted under 41
Battalion at Bangrasia, Bhopal.
3. While in service, the petitioner along with several other members of
the force had participated in All India Police Games 1997 at BSF,
Chawla Camp, New Delhi, in weight lifting category of 54 Kg. The
petitioner claims to have secured 6th position in All India Police
Games 1997. It is the petitioner's contention that by letter
no.841/1-Trg.-8 dated 3rd June, 1994 all those members of the
force who had secured best of 6th position in All India Police Games
1997, were to be considered for promotion under 10% un-qualified
sports quota in terms of the aforesaid letter. According to the
petitioner all participants who were similarly circumstanced and
had secured 6th position in the said Games had already been
promoted to the next higher rank including the respondent nos. 6
and 7. The petitioner states that despite securing 6th position in All
India Police Games 1997, his case was not considered for promotion
to the rank of Head Constable. The petitioner had made a
representation dated 22nd July, 2011, for consideration of his case.
The competent authority on the basis of the representation made by
the petitioner had requested the respondent no.4 to take necessary
steps for disposal of the petitioner's application. Consequent upon
the aforesaid, the Team Manager C.W.L.T. at GC, New Delhi, by his
order dated 10th August, 2011 had informed the Deputy Inspector
General, ESTT. DTE that the petitioner had secured 6th position in
the 54 Kg. weight lifting category and recommended his name for
taking necessary action.
4. Since, his case was not considered, the petitioner has filed the
instant writ petition. The respondents are contesting the
aforesaid proceedings. Affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply
filed in Court today on behalf of the parties are taken on record.
5. Mr. Dalal, learned advocate representing the respondents by
drawing attention of this Court to the letter dated 3rd June, 1994
captioned: "Incentive to the sportsmen for their excellence in games
and sports.", submits that under clause no.7, guidelines have been
provided for grant of promotion/cash rewards to sportsmen as well
as coaches in various disciplines of the games and sports as per
appendix 'A' to 'C' to the said letter. By referring Appendix 'A' to the
said letter which deals with promotion, he submits since, the
petitioner was a Constable, his next promotional post is that of
Head Constable. By referring to the aforesaid Appendix it is
submitted that the petitioner did not qualify for being considered for
promotion and is otherwise not eligible. According to Mr. Dalal,
only the members of the force who wins a silver medal in nationals
or a gold medal in All India Police Games or three silver medals in
All India Police Games, would be considered for promotion.
According to the respondents by the order dated 10th October,
1997, the posts of Constable and Head Constable were reorganized,
however, such reorganization does not assist the petitioner. It is still
further submitted on behalf of the respondents that by a
communication dated 13th April, 2012, the petitioner's
representation was duly considered and, since, it was found that
the petitioner did not qualify to be entitled to grant of promotion
'out of turn' his case, was regretted.
6. In response to the above, Mr. Paul, learned advocate representing
the petitioner, submits that the rejection order deals with a
subsequent letter and not the scheme-in-question which entitles
the petitioner to be considered for promotion. The letter of regret is
illegal. The respondents should be directed to consider the
petitioner for promotion. He, however, could not identify from the
aforesaid scheme/letter dated 3rd June, 1994 and the Appendix 'A'
thereto, that the petitioner was qualified for being considered for
promotion.
7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
and considered the materials on record. Admittedly, the petitioner is
a member of the force. At the relevant point of time he was posted
as a Constable. The petitioner had participated in All India Police
Games 1997 at BSF, Chawla Camp, New Delhi, in weight lifting
category of 54 Kg. The petitioner had secured 6th position. I find
from the letter dated 3rd June, 1994 and the Appendix 'A' thereto,
that the eligibility criteria for grant of promotion to the post of Head
Constable has been clearly defined. To appropriately appreciate the
aforesaid, the relevant clause is extracted hereinbelow:-
HEAD CONSTABLE
"5. A member of the force will be eligible for promotion
to the rank of Head Constable irrespective of his/her rank
if, that member;
a) wins a Silver medal in nationals
or
b) wins a Gold medal in All India Police Games
or
c) wins three Silver medals in all India Police Games".
8. Admittedly the petitioner was seeking promotion to the post of Head
Constable. On the petitioner's own showing, the petitioner did not
qualify to be entitled for being considered for promotion, in terms of
the aforesaid scheme as he only secured 6th position. He did not win
any Gold or Silver medal in the All India Police Game, 1997.
9. There is no substance in the petitioner's contention that he is
eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Head
Constable on the basis of the above Scheme/letter dated 3rd June,
1994.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid, the writ application fails and the
same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
sb.
