Upendra Paswan vs The State of Bihar

Honourable Mr. Justice, Chakradhari Sharan Singh

Heard Mr. Ram Hirday Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Kamal, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel-9 appearing for the State of Bihar and its officials. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the decision of "Special D.G. Board" ( hereinafter referred to as to Board) headed by the Director General Police, Bihar in its meeting held on 25.6.2001, whereby petitioner has been found unfit for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police from the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. Further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to consider his case for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 1988 and to promote the petitioner on the post of Inspector from "1983" since when persons junior to the petitioner were promoted.

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on the basis of direct recruitment as a Scheduled Caste candidate in the year 1976 and was confirmed on the said post on 1.3.1982. It has been contended that in the year 1982, the Board considered the cases of such Sub Inspectors of Police who belonged to Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes and who had completed four years or more in service in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and were confirmed; for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police. The case of the petitioner was not considered as his case was not forwarded by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saharsha to the D.G. Board. The plea on behalf of the petitioner is that till the date when the Board considered the cases for promotion of Sub Inspectors of Police belonging to SC and ST category, in 1982, there was neither any proceeding pending against him, nor any major punishment was imposed on him. This is however, an admitted position that the petitioner did not question the said denial of consideration of his promotion the year 1982 before any forum i.e. the departmental or this Court.

As per pleadings in the writ application, in the year 1985 punishment of entering "black marks" in the service book of the petitioner were imposed with respect to an occurrence dated 9.12.1984. Referring to Rule 726(iii) of the Bihar Police Manual, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the effect of the entry of "black marks" came to an end after expiry of three years from the date of occurrence. In support of his plea he places reliance on a judgment of this Court in case of Ram Anugarah Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1992 BBCJ 440. It is added here that in the meanwhile, in the year 1985, there was meeting of the D.G. Board for considering cases of Sub Inspectors of Police for their promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police. The petitioner was found unfit because of the "black mark" entries in his service book in the year 1985.

In paragraph 9 of the writ petition it has been averred that there was sitting of DPC in the year 1988 also but the petitioner was declared unfit, even this time, though the effect of major punishment had expired on 9.12.1987. In the background of these facts, the specific case of the petitioner, as submitted on his behalf is that he was entitled for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police with effect from 1988, if not from 1983. It has been contended that cases of persons junior to him were favourably considered in 1988 meeting, denying his claim, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It would be apt to refer to the pleadings of the writ application with regard to the developments from the year 1988 till 2001 when he earlier filed writ application before this Court vide CWJC of 595 of 2001. It is averred that DPC meetings were held in 1989, 1990 and 1998 but the petitioner''s case was not considered. In the meanwhile, several proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and even punishments were imposed. Rejection of his case for promotion repeatedly made him file the said writ petition.

s Court, however, vide order dated 15.1.2001 passed in CWJC of 595 of 2001 gave liberty to the petitioner to agitate his grievance; and direction to the respondents to consider his case, in the following terms:-

I however, find that this writ petition is based only on the assertions made by the petitioner and there is not a single paper or document to substantiate the assertions made in the writ petition. I find it difficult to proceed only on the assertions made in the writ petition and I am also not inclined to ask the State counsel to collect the facts and circumstances in aid of this writ petition. his writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may agitate his grievances by filing a representation before the Director General-cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar. In case such a representation is filed within one month from today, this Court expects the Director General to have the petitioner''s grievances examined. A competent officer will then dispose of his representation by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. In case the representation is turned down, the competent officer will pass a speaking order briefly stating reasons. It is expected that a final order on the petitioner''s representation will be passed within three months from the date of its submission.

Even in the present writ application, I find, as was the case in the previous writ application that it is based merely on assertions and no paper or document has been brought on record in support of the assertions. The liberty given to the petitioner to file his representation within one month was not availed. The Board considered the cases for promotion on 25.6.2001 and again found the petitioner unfit for promotion on the ground that there were altogether 19 major punishments and 78 minor punishments inflicted on the petitioner. The Board accordingly held him unfit for promotion on the ground of poor service record.

Two representations have been brought on record dated 28.8.2001 and 29.9.2001 which are Annexure-4 series said to have been filed by the petitioner in the light of the order of this Court dated 15.1.2001 which were evidently not filed within the stipulated time, prescribed by this Court.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Director General-cum Inspector General of Police (Respondent of2) to the effect that in light of the order of this Court passed in CWJC of 595 of 2001 the petitioner''s case was placed before the Special D.G. Board and the Board having examined the service particular found the petitioner unfit for promotion on the basis of unsatisfactory service record. As regards the petitioner''s case for promotion on the basis of the meeting of the DG Board held in the year 1982 it has been stated that petitioner was placed at serial of104 whereas case upto the persons appearing at serial of84 only were considered.

In view of the fact that the petitioner did not raise any grievance with regard to the denial of consideration of promotion in the year 1982 before any forum, the said grievance cannot be looked into at this stage. As regards the petitioner''s claim for his right to be considered in the 1988 D.G. Board, I find that the petitioner was not at all vigilant about his case and he approached this Court for the first time in the year 2001 that too without sufficient materials on record. Even the liberty granted by this Court to approach the authority by filing representation was not availed before the D.G. Board in June, 2001. The contention of the petitioner with reference to Rule 726(iii) and reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 1992 BBCJ 440 ( Ram Anugrah Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar) is also of no avail, in view of the conduct of the petitioner. There is absolutely no assertion with regard to the persons junior to him who have been considered and granted such promotion. Such persons have not been impleaded as party respondents in this case.

The proposition of law need not be reiterated that a person can claim as of right consideration for promotion only and not promotion. The case of the petitioner has been considered for promotion and he has not been found fit for such promotion. I do not find any reason to interfere in the facts and circumstances of the case..

Lastly, the reason assigned by the Special D.G. Board in its meeting held on 25.6.2001 for denial of promotion to the petitioner does not require any interference as the ground for finding the petitioner unfit for promotion are well founded.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to cost.