Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 794 (ALL)

SIKANDER SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2009-03-17

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2009
B. K. NARAYANA, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today be kept on record. 2. Heard Sri Uttar Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 14. 2. 2006 passed by the Director General of Police, P. A. C. , Uttar Pradesh rejecting the petitioners claim for grant of out of turn promotion. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners claim for grant of out of turn promotion has been rejected on the ground that the Director General of Police, P. A. C. , Uttar Pradesh was not competent to consider and decide the petitioners claim as he was not the controlling authority of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that in case the Director General of Police, P. A. C. , Uttar Pradesh was conscious of the fact that he was not competent to decide the petitioners claim, it was incumbent upon him to have referred the matter to the competent authority instead of rejecting the same on merits. 5. Learned Standing Counsel defending the impugned order has submitted that although the petitioners claim for grant of out of turn promotion had been rejected by the impugned order, liberty was given to him to approach the competent authority for claiming out of turn promotion and hence no right of the petitioner has been infringed. 6. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The impugned order shows that despite being aware of the fact that he was not competent to consider and decide the petitioners claim for grant of out of turn promotion the Director General of Police, P. A. C. , Uttar Pradesh proceeded to examine the petitioners claim on merit and rejected the same. 8. This Court is of the view that once the Director General of Police, P. A. C. , Uttar Pradesh came to the conclusion that he had no authority to decide the petitioners claim, it was incumbent upon him to have referred the matter to the competent authority and his failure to do so has rendered the impugned order totally unsustainable and without jurisdiction. 9. For the aforesaid reason, the order dated 14. 2. 9. For the aforesaid reason, the order dated 14. 2. 2006 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by the Director General of Police, P. A. C. , Uttar Pradesh is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the petitioners claim for grant of out of turn promotion strictly in accordance with law and pass suitable order thereon within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. .