Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 609 (DEL)

MOHAN CHANDRA BHATT v. UOI AND ORS.

2006-03-24

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, REVA KHETRAPAL

body2006
REVA KHETRAPAL, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing of order of promotion dated 2. 2. 2000, whereby, the petitioner stood superseded by the third respondent, a junior officer. ( 2 ) FIRST, the facts in a nut shell:- ( 3 ) THE petitioner entered the Indo Tibetan border Police Force (in short, ITBPF) on 10th december, 1973 as a direct entry officer. His initial appointment was as a Company commandant, but by September 1989 he had reached the level of Commandant. After about a decade two vacancies arose in the force for the post of Additional Deputy inspector General, a selection post. The petitioner along with seven other persons was within the zone of consideration. Accordingly, a DPC was convened in the month of Jan. 2000, and the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the said post with the other candidates. For the said purpose the ACRs of the eight incumbents were placed before the DPC for consideration. The result of the DPC was announced on 2nd Feb. 2000, whereby, the names of one Shri D. K. Sharma and Sh. Daljit singh, the third respondent herein, were selected for the two vacancies which had accrued. It is the case of the petitioner that it was then that he came to know that he had been overlooked. for promotion to the post of Additional Deputy Inspector General. In so far as the promotion of Shri O. K. Sharma is concerned, the petitioner has no grievance, the former being admittedly senior to the petitioner, but the petitioner is aggrieved by his non promotion and the promotion of a junior officer, viz Shri Daljit t Singh, the third respondent herein. The petitioner accordingly knocked at the door of the Director General, itbpf and was granted interview on 14th march, 2000. The petitioner thereafter on the latter s advise also preferred a representation to the Union Home Secretary, ministry of Home Affairs, Government of india on 5. 4. 2000 which, however, was rejected by the said Ministry vide communication dated 20th Jan. 2000. No other avenue being available to the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition. The petitioner thereafter on the latter s advise also preferred a representation to the Union Home Secretary, ministry of Home Affairs, Government of india on 5. 4. 2000 which, however, was rejected by the said Ministry vide communication dated 20th Jan. 2000. No other avenue being available to the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition. ( 4 ) AT the threshold, we may notice that it is not in dispute that the post of Additional deputy Inspector General in the ITBPF is a selection post and promotion to the said post is made purely on merit basis by the dpc after comprehensive and objective scrutiny of service record and the ACRs of the officers in the consideration zone. Significantly also, the petitioner has not alleged any malafide or bias against the members of the DPC. All that is stated by the petitioner is that as per his understanding he was ranked in the highest grade in most of his acrs relevant for the aforesaid promotion and that he was never told at any stage there had been any toning down of his ACR grades. This being so and the downgrading in his ACRs not having been advised to him, the said down grading would be non est. Great prejudice has been caused to him by the down grading accorded to him without communicating the same to him as the same had bearing upon his promotion, and if not communicated to him the same ought to have been ignored. ( 5 ) PER contra, the present writ petition is misconceived since the promotions are made on the basis of merit and the petitioner does not have any right to challenge the recommendations of the duly constituted dpc made on the basis of objective assessment of all the officers. It is contended by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that the dpc was required to assess the suitability of the officers for promotion on the basis of service record in terms of the guidelines issued in this regavd. In this contention, a notification G. S. R. 766 (E) issued by the ministry of Home Affairs dated 11. 11. 1999 has been placed on record formulating ITBPF, general Duty Cadre Group A Posts recruitment Rules 1999. A bare glance at the schedule annexed thereto shows that the post of Addl. In this contention, a notification G. S. R. 766 (E) issued by the ministry of Home Affairs dated 11. 11. 1999 has been placed on record formulating ITBPF, general Duty Cadre Group A Posts recruitment Rules 1999. A bare glance at the schedule annexed thereto shows that the post of Addl. Deputy Inspector General, a group "a" post in the pay scale of Rs. 14300- 400-18300 has been shown to be a Selection by Merit" post. It is also submitted that in the ITBPF the performance of an officer is monitored under a three tier system, viz. by the Reporting Authority, the Reviewing authority and the Accepting Authority, all of whom give their grading according to their objective assessment of the officer s work and conduct during a particular period in the Annual Confidential Report of the said officer. While considering appointment to a selection post, the DPC examines the record of the Reporting Officer, the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Officer for each years annual Confidential Report, then formulates its opinion and gives its grading and makes recommendations for promotion. As such, there is no scope for challenging the recommendations of the duly constituted dpc. ( 6 ) ON merits, it is submitted that though the petitioner s Battalion was adjudged the Best battalion for the year 1992-93, the respondent no. 3 had been honoured to get the Best Battalion Trophy twice while he was commanding the 4th Battalion and the 12th Battalion for the years 1994 and 1997 respectively, which makes it amply clear that his performance as a Commandant was better then that of the petitioner. Besides, he was awarded the Indian Police Medal for meritorious services in the year 1993, and the president Police Medal for Distinguished service in the year 2000. He had also been awarded the DG s Commendation Letter and Insignia in 1997 and a number of appreciation letters by the DG and other superior officers. As such, his service record is comparatively better than that of the petitioner. As regards Annual Confidential reports, it is pointed out that the respondent no. 3 was ranked in the higher grade in the annual Confidential Reports for the preceding five years right from the stage of the reporting Authority to the Accepting authority, which was not so in the case of the petitioner. As regards Annual Confidential reports, it is pointed out that the respondent no. 3 was ranked in the higher grade in the annual Confidential Reports for the preceding five years right from the stage of the reporting Authority to the Accepting authority, which was not so in the case of the petitioner. Further in the case of the petitioner the reviewing authority on two occasions had upgraded the grading given by the reporting Authority. It is also contended that the petitioner not having made any mohan Chandra Bhatt (Sh.) Vs. UOI and Ors. 311 allegations of bias or prejudice against the DPC and the promotions having been made on the basis of objective assessment made by the DPC are not open to challenge. Moreover, since the petitioner was never given any adverse grading, he was not communicated his grades in writing, since under the prevalent instructions only adverse remarks are communicated and not any downgrading in the Annual Confidential reports, more so when it is a question of comprarative merit alone. ( 7 ) KEEPING in mind the rival contentions of the parties, the records were called for including the annual Confidential Reports folder of the petitioner, which were perused by us alongwith the comparative Chart of Gradings of the petitioner, the third respondent and other incumbents. The same is reproduced as under:-