Samu Murmu vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 891 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               W.P. (C.) No.983/2010

%                           Date of Decision: 16.02.2010

Samu Murmu                                                     .... Petitioner

                            Through Mr. S.C. Soren, Advocate

                                     Versus

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.                               .... Respondents
            Through                  Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be                   YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                      NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in                  NO
     the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner had sought a review DPC for promotion to the post

of Inspector of Police (Executive) against the ST quota from the post of

Sub-Inspector of Police from the date his juniors were promoted and

had filed an original application No. 3647/2009 titled Samu Murmur

Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi which was dismissed by the Principal Bench,

Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 6th December, 2009

which is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

The Departmental Promotion Committees held on 30th November,

2007 and 16th September, 2008 considered the name of the petitioner

for the Promotion List-F (Executive) and since the petitioner did not

achieve the bench mark, both the DPCs did not recommend his name.

The bench mark for consideration was the relevant record for the past

ten years. The Tribunal while considering the case of the petitioner

noted that he had eight censures during the period 13th June, 2001 to

3rd January, 2007 and relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in

WP(C) No. 17266/2006, Commissioner of Police vs. Mr. Jawahar Singh

decided on 17th February, 2009 holding that while considering the

employee for promotion, his whole record can be taken into

consideration by DPC and after considering the record, if the promotion

is denied then that cannot be treated as illegal or unjustified.

In Mr. Jawahar Singh (supra) the police official had been awarded

four censures during the period 1996 to 2001. It was held that even

after the expiry of the period of censures, the DPC can consider the

overall record and the nature of punishment and on consideration, if

comes to the conclusion that employee is not fit to be promoted, the

Court is not to interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the

Departmental Promotion Committee which obviously is based on

objective material.

In the case of petitioner he has eight censures from 13th June,

2001 to 3rd January, 2007. The bench mark for promotion from Sub-

Inspector to Inspector is consideration of the relevant record for the

past ten years and therefore, the DPC has considered the record for the

period 2001-2007 also during which the petitioner had been awarded

censures eight times.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically

contended that all the censures were on account of bias of the seniors

against the petitioner as he had not assisted the seniors in illegal work.

However, no particulars have been given about the alleged illegal work

which was allegedly was to be got done from the petitioner and on his

refusal, it led to alleged bias. In any case, if the censures were awarded

to the petitioner, he should have challenged the same at the appropriate

time alleging bias or whatsoever grounds were available to him.

Since the censures awarded to the petitioner during the period

13th June, 2001 to 3rd January, 2007 became final, the petitioner

cannot turn around and contend that the said censures are not to be

considered on the grounds now alleged by the petitioner.

The Departmental Promotion Committee has objectively

considered the relevant record according to the bench mark and if has

come to a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is not entitled for

promotion, there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with such a

decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee and consequently,

there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal

dismissing the original application of the petitioner seeking direction to

the respondent to hold a review DPC for the petitioner for promotion

from Sub-Inspector to Inspector (Executive).

In the circumstances, the writ petition is without any merit and it

is therefore dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

February 16, 2010                               MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'