Sh. Kishore Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1887 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner was recruited as a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short 'CISF') under direct quota in the year 1976. He served the Force with great sincerity and vigour. According to the petitioner he performed his duties excellently and had been given awards many times during the course of his service. The petitioner had qualified for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 1992 itself and a seniority list was prepared wherein the petitioner was at Seniority No. 3351. However, the petitioner was not promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector despite the fact that the service record of the petitioner was very good and he possessed the minimum qualifying service of 5 years as ASI. The petitioner was also not promoted though he was entitled to be promoted as SI in the year 1995-1996. It is further the case of the petitioner that persons with less than 5 years of experience as ASI had been promoted to the post of SI, while promotion of the petitioner was withheld without any justification. The petitioner was then transferred to Delhi where he gave a letter dated 24.3.2000 to the respondent No. 1 and sought personal interview to sort out his promotion matter. After the said meeting, on 15.7.2000 the petitioner was informed by the respondents that the Departmental Promotion Committee had found the petitioner not fit for promotion to the post of SI, against which the petitioner made number of representations to the respondents. Despite persistent requests of the petitioner, he was not promoted to the rank of SI, thus resulting in the filing of the present writ petition.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside or quashing or modification of the order dated 22.12.1999 whereby others have been promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspectors but the petitioner has not been granted the promotion.

3. The respondents have opposed the present petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner is not fit to be promoted as Sub-Inspector under the promotion quota, as he does not satisfy the requirements of the promotion rules i.e. in the last 5 years, the marks for every punishment has to be deducted and only then the minimum qualifying marks are to be calculated and a person securing the same is to be promoted. A person cannot be considered for promotion only on the basis, as averred in the petition. According to the respondents, the following punishments were inflicted upon the petitioner in the recent past of his service career:

  a) Censure                   - 1992
b) Withholding of increment  - 1994
c) Censure                   - August 1996
d) Censure                   - 04.10.1996
e) Censure                   - 31.12.1996
f) Censure                   - 1997
g) One day pay fine          - 2000
 

The petitioner was declined promotion on account of his being (UNFIT) by the DPC as he did not secure the minimum qualifying marks in the service records as intimated by the Gp. Hqrs. Patna vide their letter N. V-14013/Adm-1/GHP/2001-1074 dated 07.03.2001. The department follows a set procedure based on rules, guidelines and as such there is no room for violation of the promotion policy or the principles of natural justice.

4. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioner was considered for promotion in the year 1996, 1997 and even from 1998 to 2000, but every time either he did not secure the qualifying marks, failed in service documents or could also not secure the qualifying marks in service documents and hence, was found to be unfit by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

5. As is obvious from the above narrated facts, the controversy in the present case falls within a very narrow compass. There cannot be any dispute that if for every inflicted punishment, the marks are to be deducted, then the petitioner cannot make a prayer for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. It is also undisputed that there are Rules, Instructions and Circulars governing the promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. The petitioner himself, to his rejoinder has annexed a circular issued by the Directorate General of Central Industrial Security Force on 18/20-11-1998 stating that the marks allotted for grading of ACRs, while evaluating the suitability of a person in the DPC were amended and this very letter provided that for the punishment during the past 5 years period, which the DPC will consider, three marks will be deducted for each minor punishment and the person will be declared 'below average, not yet fit'. Paragraph 5 of the same circular provides that the marks of the ACR as amended above will be applicable from the DPCs of 1999 and onwards till further modification. On this premise, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was considered right from the year 1996 to 1998 when these instructions were not applicable, as such the respondents could not deduct any marks even for the minor punishments inflicted upon the petitioner. This argument, at the face of it, is without merit. The letter dated 20.11.1998 produced by the petitioner in turn refers to an earlier letter/circular dated 17/20-7-1985. The relevant clauses of the letter dated 17/21-07- 1995 read as under:

(b) Service Records (Total Marks 80)

A maximum of 16 marks are allocated for each annual report for the past five years which the DPC will consider as per details given below:

  a) Outstanding          - 16 marks
b) Very Good            - 13 marks
c) Good                 - 10 marks
d) Average/Satisfactory - 07 marks
e) Below average        - 00 Zero 
 

(c) Punishment : During the past five years period which the DPC will consider, 3 marks will be deducted for each monor punishment. The officer will be declared 'BELOW AVERAGE /NOT YET FIT' in case of major punishment in the preceeding year of holding of DPC, otherwise five marks will be deducted for each Major punishment.

Note :

1. Each general category candidate should secure a minimum total of 50 marks aggregate marks to qualify. SC/ST category candidate will secure a minimum total of 40 marks to qualify.

2. For all the general category candidates who secure 50 marks or above and 40 marks or above in respect of SC/ST candidates would be termed as 'GOOD' as prescribed above should be included in the panel in order of their inter-se-seniority in the feeder rank.

3. All candidates included in the panel would be detailed for PCC of HC (GD & DVR) to ASI/Exe, if they have already not qualified the PCC of ASI/Exe. Only those who qualify the PCC of ASI/Exe in two chances would be promoted to the rank of ASI/Exe.

6. We may also notice that the same very instructions have been reiterated with same content even vide office order No. F-31014/12/2005/Estt.I/1246 dated 21.12.2005. Thus, the consistent office orders/circulars issued by the respondents clearly establish that the respondents have a consistent policy wherein the Departmental Promotion Committees are required to deduct the marks for every minor punishment. Once the marks are deducted in conformity with these uniform policies and standards/criteria adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner undoubtedly cannot be promoted as he had been declared unfit by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The various representations filed by the petitioner have been rejected by the respondents on the same basis. The action of the respondents in denying promotion while promoting other officers, does not call for any interference and cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. Though, the petitioner prays for quashing or modification of the order dated 22.12.1999, but still he has not imp leaded any of the said promoted officers as respondents in the present writ petition.

7. Be that as it may, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.