Nand Lal Dubey …. … v. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3609 of 2020 Nand Lal Dubey …. …. Petitioner 1. 2. 3. Versus State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Ranchi. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand Police Headquarter, Ranchi. The Superintendent of Police (Services & Communication), Ranchi. …. … Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ : : -------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
judgments passed by this Court in the cases of L.P.A. No. 481 of 2010 decided on 22.8.2012 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Suryadeo Prasad), W.P.(S) No. 2275 of 2017 reported in (2020) 01 JH CK 192 and W.P.(S) No. 1404 of 2016 decided on 27.7.2022 (Shivendu Pathak Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) submits that when there is fault on the part of the employer, the employee should not suffer. Admittedly, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in the present case and hence, a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for further promotion to the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police notionally. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Priti Priyamvada, learned AC to GP-V representing the respondents submits that admittedly the petitioner was supposed to be considered for promotion in the year 2014, but because of adverse entry made in the ACR, his case was not considered and it was only after rectification of the ACR entry, the petitioner was considered for further promotions. Learned counsel further submits that the claim of petitioner for modification / rectification in the seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Police has righty been rejected by the respondents. She submits that at no point of time, 3 the petitioner has thrown challenge to the gradation list of Sub Inspector of Police. Learned counsel further submits that promotion is not a right of an employee, unless any junior has been promoted. Since the petitioner stood retired, no consideration for further promotion could be shown to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have no fault for entering the adverse remarks in the ACR of petitioner and only on the representation of the petitioner, the adverse remarks entered in the ACR has been expunged. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case which requires interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is required in the present writ petition. The petitioner is claiming promotion for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with retrospective effect. Admittedly, the petitioner has superannuated on 31.12.2020. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Literate Constable. In course of time, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 27.1.1996 and thereafter to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on 29.7.2016 and later on, to the post of Inspector of Police on 18.1.2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the gradation list of Sub-Inspector of Police prepared in the year 2014. Never the petitioner has bothered to challenge the said gradation list and it was only after retirement, the petitioner is seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police after rectification of gradation list of Sub- Inspector (Operator) Wireless cadre prepared in the year 2014 itself, meant for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The law is very clear that promotion is not a right of an employee. However, the right for promotion has accrued when junior to the employee has been considered and granted promotion. Admittedly, no junior to the petitioner has been given promotion. The reliance of the judgments aforesaid placed by the petitioner does not come to his rescue as the same is not applicable in the present facts and circumstance of the case. No case is made out for any interference by the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations, no interference is warranted
Arguments
Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate Ms. Priti Priyavamda, AC to GP-V 6/ 27.09.2023 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 966 dated 28.8.2017 (Annexure- 7) communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 964 dated 19.10.2021, whereby the claim for modification / correction in the gradation list of Sub- Inspector (Operator) Wireless cadre prepared in the year 2014 has been rejected by the Central Selection Board in its meeting dated 26.7.2017. Further prayer has been made by the petitioner for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from retrospective effect as the petitioner has already retired on 31.12.2020. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Literate Constable on 15.2.1994. After rendering satisfactory service, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on 27.1.1996. In the year 2014 vide letter dated 10.9.2014, several other similarly situated persons were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, but the case of the petitioner was not considered illegally and arbitrary mainly on the ground of wrong adverse entry in the ACR. However, the respondent- authorities have rectified the adverse entry made in the ACR of the petitioner and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police vide office order dated 29.7.2016. In course of time, the petitioner was also promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on 18.1.2019. It is specific case of the petitioner that if wrong entry could not have been entered by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2014 itself when several other similarly situated persons were promoted and therefore, the petitioner by now ought to have been promoted to the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police also before his 2 retirement on 31.12.2020. With these averments, the petitioner has approached this Court for further promotion to the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police with retrospective effect. 4. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order rejecting the claim of petitioner for modification in the gradation list of Sub-Inspector (Operator) Wireless cadre is a non-speaking order and hence, it is a cryptic one. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.8.2017 is not tenable in the eyes of law. He further submits that though the petitioner has superannuated on 31.12.2020, his case ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police notionally. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents after realising their mistake have rectified the adverse entry made in the ACR of the petitioner and promoted him to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on 29.7.2016, though he ought to have been promoted in the year 2014 itself. Learned counsel further submits that if wrong entry could not have been entered, the petitioner might have been promoted in the year 2014 itself and prior to retirement, he could have been considered for further promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police also. Learned counsel placing heavy reliance upon the
Decision
in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)