K.A. Thomas vs Govt. of Kerala

P.N. Ravindran, J.—Heard Sri. V. Philip Mathews, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner entered service as Sub Inspector of Police on 1.1.1974. He was promoted as Circle Inspector of Police in the year 1982. Later, he was included in the select list for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police during the year 1994. He was thereafter promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police by G.O(Rt) No. 457/95/Home dated 7.3.1995 and he took charge as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 20.3.1995. He retired from service on 30.6.1999. Shortly before retirement, the petitioner moved the Government in Ext.P4 representation dated 14.6.1999 seeking promotion to the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 19.9.1982. That request was rejected by the Government and the decision rejecting the said request was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P6 letter dated 20.8.1999. Ext.P6 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant him all service benefits in the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 19.9.1982.

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. Paras 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit which are relevant for the purpose of this case read as follows:

he ought to It have been promoted as Dy SP on 19.9.1982 is "7. is submitted that the petitioner''s contention that baseless. Departmental He Promotion Committee for the preparation of was included in the field of choice by Circle Inspector of Police fit for promotion as DySPs for the year 1992. The Departmental Promotion Committee held on 11.12.1991 had decided to supersede him on account of his unsatisfactory performance. Committee found further merit The and Departmental petitioner Promotion ability of the inferior. The select list for the year 1993 was not prepared. He was included as Sl. No. 5 in the select list of CIs fit for promotion for the post of DySPs during the year 1994. Thus Shri. K.A. Thomas, petitioner was promoted as DySP vide G.O (Rt) No. 457/95/Home dated 7.3.1995 and he took charge of the post of DySP on 20.3.1995. Hence it is evident that the petitioner became eligible for promotion as DySP only in the year 1992. So the issue of promotion or notionally promoting him in the year 1982 does not arise at all. of the8.seniority list of Dy SP as on 1.1.1995 took charge as

It is submitted that Shri. K.P. Varijakshan Sl. No. 11 DySP on 21.6.1982 and Shri. P. Aboobacker Sl. No. 12 took charge as DySP on 30.3.1983. The petitioner demands that he ought to have been promoted as DySP on 19.9.1982 as he began to discharge the duties of a DySP. It is to be remembered that the petitioner took charge as Circle Inspector of Police on the promotion on 19.9.1982 only. He alleges that if he had been promoted as DySP on 19.9.1982, he would have got a place in between Sl. No. 11 and 12 in the Ext.P5 seniority list of DySPs. This contention of the petitioner does not merit consideration. The petitioner was promoted as DySP vide G.O (Rt) No. 457/95/Home dated 7.3.1995 only and he took charge of the post of DySP only on 20.3.1995 FN and he is eligible to get the benefits of a DySP only with effect from 20.3.1995.

It is evident from the averments in counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was promoted as Circle Inspector of Police only on 19.9.1982. He does not claim promotion as Circle Inspector of Police earlier than 19.9.1982. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he was eligible to be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 19.9.1982. His case is that if he had been promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 19.9.1982 he would have been placed higher in the seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner was not found fit for promotion to the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1991 and was superceded. The petitioner did not question his supercession in the year 1991. He was thereafter included in the select list in the year 1994 and was promoted. On the eve of his retirement he moved the Government claiming promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 19.9.1982. On the materials placed before me I am persuaded to agree with the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the petitioner''s claim is belated and is without merit. The petitioner has no case that he was superceded on extraneous considerations. The petitioner was promoted as Circle Inspector of Police only with effect from 19.9.1982. He was superceded by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1991 and found fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police only in the year 1994. He cannot at this distance of time claim that he ought to have been promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1982. The claim made by the petitioner is not sustainable in law or on facts. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.