Anil Kumar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1182 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule D.B.

2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. The petitioner was recruited in the Central Industrial Security Force as Constable on 1st October 1992 in the sports quota due to his being an excellent athlete. The petitioner participated in the 47th All India Police Aquatic & Cross Country Championship 1998 and has secured favorable results. The petitioner's main grievance is that inspite of his excellent performance he was not given promotion as envisaged by the policy guidelines laid down in Govt. of India, ministry of Home Affairs, Department of personal and Administrative Reforms Office memorandum No. 14015/1-78 Estt (O) dated 4th August 1980.

4. This writ petition is for seeking consideration of the petitioner for the promotion to the rank of Head Constable on the basis of guidelines of the policy laid down for giving out of turn promotion to the outstanding sports personnel. The policy in question reads as under:

"HEAD CONSTABLE

A member of the Force will be eligible for promotion to the rank of Head Constable irrespective of their rank and if:

(a) The team he is representing wins one Bronze medal in the National Games/Championship. (Promotion will be considered on the basis of individual performance and recommendation of the Manager/Coaches)

Or

(b) The team he is representing wins two Bronze medals in All India Police Games. (Promotion will be considered on the basis of individual performance and recommendation of the Manager/Coaches)."

5. The case of the petitioner as contended by his learned counsel Shri H.S. Dahiya is that his team participated in Men's team championship event in the national level, Federation Cup National Cross- Country Championship 1996 and secured a silver medal and he was, therefore, entitled to be promoted put of turn to the post of Head Constable. A perusal of the policy in particular Clause (a) demonstrates that in order to earn eligibility for the promotion to the post of Head Constable, the team of the petitioner is inter alia required to win one Bronze medal in the National Games/Championship and in addition have the recommendation of the coach and the individual performances of the person seeking the benefit of the rule. The mere satisfaction of the condition fulfillled of winning a silver (which is high than a bronze) medal by the team of the petitioner does not entitle the petitioner for promotion as Head Constable . His case therefore is required to be considered additionally on the basis of individual performance and the recommendation of the Manager/Coach. In the present case it is not in dispute that irrespective of the individual performance of the petitioner there was no recommendation of the Manager/Coach obtained in favor of the petitioner. This is the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit as asserted by the learned counsel for the respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behuria. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner had to fulfilll the entire eligibility criteria laid down in the policy for availing out of turn promotion. Mr. Dahiya appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that an irrelevant ground relating to the plea that having been appointed in the sports quota the petitioner's performance had to be exceptional/outstanding so as to get out of turn promotion had been given in the counter affidavit by the respondent. The counsel for the respondent Ms. Behura has however very fairly not supported the part of the stand taken in the counter affidavit which required the petitioner as a sports quota appointee to have an exceptional/outstanding performance in addition to the requirements stated in the policy for out of turn promotion for the outstanding sportsmen but has highlighted the fact that the concerned Coach/Manager did not recommend the petitioner's case for out of turn promotion to the rank of Head Constable.

6. We are of the view that the plea of the counsel for the respondent has merit and deserves to be accepted. The promotion policy clearly requires that in order to be eligible for promotion, the team of the petitioner was not only required to win a bronze medal, the condition which was undoubtedly fulfillled in the present case but the petitioner was also required to have an individual performance backed up by the recommendation of the manager/coach. Since there was no individual performance backed up by the recommendation by the manager/coach the petitioner could not avail the benefit of the promotion envisaged by the sports policy. In this view of the matter the petitioner did not fulfilll the requirement of the policy on which he has relied upon as his performance of winning the Medal was not recommended by the Manager/Coach which is a sine qua non for the promotion to be considered on the basis of such performance. Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.