Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 868 (GUJ)

O. S. Tiwari v. State of Gujarat

2011-12-29

G.B.SHAH

body2011
Judgment G.B. Shah, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar dated 07.10.2010. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable in the year 1974 after following due process of law and thereafter he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1992. The petitioner was lastly promoted as PSI in the year 1998 and at present the petitioner is holding the said post i.e. Police Sub-Inspector in Traffic Branch in Ahmedabad City. In the Resolution dated 2.2.2005 it was specifically mentioned that in the Annual Confidential Report (for short, “ACR”) the remark “ordinary” should not be used. However, in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2004-05 in four places the remark “ordinary” was mentioned. Therefore, a negative remark was shown in the ACR of the petitioner for the said period. Being aggrieved by the said remarks, the petitioner submitted a representation and requested to expunge the said remarks and has demonstrated that he has been working on the said post since last many years with sheer diligence and honesty. Pursuant to the representation dated 12.10.2009, the respondents had considered the representation of the petitioner positively and passed order dated 2.3.2010 wherein the adverse remarks of the petitioner were expunged and the same were ordered to be considered as “good”. Thus, as on date there is no adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner. 2.1. In the year 2000, the petitioner was posted at Rajkot and was serving as police Sub-Inspector. At that time, while he was in service, a criminal complaint being No. 25 of 2000 came to be registered before the said police against certain accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 120-B, 114, 34 & 326 of IPC and Sections 135 and 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The said investigation was carried out by the petitioner. The said investigation was carried out by the petitioner. On 10.9.2002 the petitioner had received a charge sheet from the respondents levelling charge against the petitioner that though under Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the accused are required to be kept in custody for 24 hours, the petitioner allowed the six accused to go on the same date after presenting them before the concerned Magistrate without even asking for remand of the accused. It is also alleged that due to utter negligence, the main accused was not arrested but facilitated the accused to move for anticipatory bail. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the above charge sheet. The petitioner had submitted his detailed reply to the aforesaid charge sheet wherein he has stated that he had asked for remand of the accused but the same was declined by the learned Judge. After considering all the documents on record and the submissions of the petitioner, the Police Inspector Office, Rural, Ahmedabad by order dated 20.4.2005 passed order that the charges against the petitioner are proved to be correct and therefore, the petitioner was degraded from the scale of Rs. 6625/- to the minimum pay scale of Rs. 5500/- for two years with future effect and the period of 2.10.2000 to 11.12.2000 was considered as absent. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, considering the fact that the petitioner has been awarded 150 prizes, has not disturbed the finding of guilt of the petitioner recorded by the Disciplinary Authority but reduced the punishment imposed to a scale of pay i.e. Rs. 6375/- lower than the existing scale of pay i.e. Rs. 6725/- of the petitioner for a period of one year with no future effect. The petitioner was not considered for promotion for the post of Police Inspector on two grounds namely, that the petitioner was given charge sheet in respect of the incident took place in the year 2000 and thereafter the punishment was imposed on 20.4.2005 by the Deputy Director General of Police and in the ACR, remark of “ordinary” was considered as adverse remark. The petitioner made representation to consider his case but the respondents did not consider the same and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file Special Civil Application No. 3683 of 2009. The petitioner made representation to consider his case but the respondents did not consider the same and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file Special Civil Application No. 3683 of 2009. This Court, by order dated 20.4.2009 disposed of the said petition with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. It was also observed by the Court that if any adverse decision is taken it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate authority. 3. The respondent authorities, by order dated 31.8.2009 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion on the aforesaid two grounds, though the adverse remarks of the petitioner were expunged and the same were substituted as “good” by the respondents. Thereafter, different gradation lists of unarmed PSI in the State were published but ultimately the petitioner was declined his legitimate right of giving promotion. On giving representations on his grievance, the Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 7.10.2010 rejecting the representations stating therein that the adverse remarks of the petitioner were expunged and substituted as “good” is taken without following due process of law and therefore, the same could not be considered and also considering the fact that the petitioner is punished by the respondents by order dated 12.7.2005 for the alleged charge against him pursuant to the departmental inquiry wherein he was placed on lower scale for one year. Hence this petition. 4. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant G. Desai, appearing with Mr. K.D. Pandya for the petitioner and Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned AGP for the respondents. After their oral submissions, they have also submitted their written submissions which are ordered to be taken on record. 4.1. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not considered for promotion for the post of Police Inspector on two main grounds that the petitioner was given charge sheet in respect of the incident took place in 2000 and thereafter the punishment was imposed on 20.4.2005 by the Deputy Director General of Police wherein penalty was imposed on the petitioner by putting him in the lower pay scale of Rs. 5,500/- for two years with future effect. Subsequently, on filing of Appeal, the punishment was reduced from 2 years to 1 year without future effect. 5,500/- for two years with future effect. Subsequently, on filing of Appeal, the punishment was reduced from 2 years to 1 year without future effect. The second ground on which the petitioner was denied promotion was that in the ACR of 2004-2005 there were remarks of “ordinary” which was considered as adverse remark, though in the Resolution dated 2.2.2005 it was specifically mentioned that in the Annual Confidential Report (for short, “ACR”) the remark “ordinary” should not be used. It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that so far as the punishment is concerned, it is a minor punishment and it cannot be considered as major punishment and the department has wrongly considered it to be a major punishment in view of Gujarat State Civil Services (Discipline) Rules, 1971 (sic.) and the Gujarat State Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that on the appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was placed in the original pay scale without future effect for one year and therefore, it cannot be termed as major punishment. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Advocate that the Appellate Authority has not mentioned in the order that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion and, therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be termed as major punishment. 4.2. He has further submitted that while case of the petitioner for promotion is not considered by the respondent authority, employees who have been inflicted major penalty including cases under Prevention of Corruption Act are pending were considered for promotion in the list of promotion dated 7.4.2010. As regards the remarks in the ACR is concerned, it is reiterated by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the State Government by circular dated 2.2.2005 has directed that the Reporting Officer should not use remarks such as “ordinary”, “average” etc and even if it is used, whether it is required to be considered as “adverse remarks” or not is also to be decided by the State Government. The same position was reflected in the Resolution dated 31.3.1989. The same position was reflected in the Resolution dated 31.3.1989. Against the said remarks, the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 3685 of 2009 wherein the Court has passed order directing the State Government to consider the representation which would be made by the petitioner in accordance with law and on merits and communicate the outcome of the same to the petitioner at the earliest. The said representation was rejected by the respondent authorities. On another representation made to the State Government, the State Government has directed the Director General and Inspector General of Police to consider the said representation and the remarks “ordinary” was changed to remarks “good” and the petitioner was informed about the same. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that in the impugned order it is mentioned that the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police was not having any powers to reconsider in view of the Resolution dated 31.3.1989 and even the State Government has no such power, is without any basis and the said decision is taken arbitrarily. 5. Learned Senior Advocate has finally submitted that once the State Government has taken a step for considering the representation and decision was taken and communicated to the petitioner, the principles of estoppel will be applicable in the facts of the case. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned AGP, Mr. Maulik Nanavati on behalf of the respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct in a departmental inquiry and punishment of reduction to the lowest scale of pay of PSI for a period of two years with future effect was imposed upon him by order dated 20.4.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Appeal. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority but reduced the punishment to a scale of pay lower than the existing scale of pay for a period of one year with no future effect and this order has attained its finality. He has further submitted that Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 provides various punishments that may be imposed upon a civil servant. He has further submitted that Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 provides various punishments that may be imposed upon a civil servant. The contention of the petitioner that the above punishment is not major punishment is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law. The argument of the petitioner that the punishment was imposed on 12.7.2005 and the same came to an end in the year 2006 and thereafter the petitioner is entitled to get promotion in 2009-10 is misconceived and based on erroneous understanding of law. That no person has a right to promotion and the only right is to be considered for promotion. Accordingly his case has been considered and his name was forwarded to the Departmental Promotion Committee but he was not found fit for promotion by the Committee and thus his name was not recommended for promotion to the post of Police Inspector. Suitability of a candidate has to be assessed on the basis of overall service record with particular reference to the ACR for five preceding years. The committee evaluated the service record of the petitioner and found that he has adverse entry in his ACR of the year 2004-2005 and that major punishment had been imposed on him in the preceding five years. The said evaluation has been done by the Committee objectively in a just and impartial manner and good and sufficient reasons have been given for not finding the petitioner suitable to be recommended for promotion. On the allegation of discrimination vis-a-vis other government servants whose names have been mentioned is baseless and without any substance. The facts of these individuals are different from the facts of the case of the petitioner. With regard to the Resolution of 1989 dealing with the manner of writing and maintaining ACRs of government servants, he has submitted that once a decision has been taken by the Accepting Authority on representation made by the government servant, no further representation shall be entertained with regard to the adverse remarks in the CRs which was the subject matter of the representation. Regarding the question of power and competence of the Dy. Inspector General of Police, he has submitted that the petitioner never questioned the same between 2006 and 2009. It is, therefore, not open for the petitioner to suggest that the Dy. Inspector General of Police is not the appropriate authority. Regarding the question of power and competence of the Dy. Inspector General of Police, he has submitted that the petitioner never questioned the same between 2006 and 2009. It is, therefore, not open for the petitioner to suggest that the Dy. Inspector General of Police is not the appropriate authority. He has finally submitted that the order impugned in this petition does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the same is just, proper and in consonance with law and it does not call for any interference and is deserved to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned Senior Advocates for the parties in light of the documents forthcoming on the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was given a charge sheet and was found guilty of misconduct in a departmental enquiry and punishment was imposed by the Dy. Director General of Police wherein penalty was imposed upon the petitioner by placing him in the lowest pay scale (i.e. from the pay scale of Rs. 6625/- to Rs. 5500/-) for two years with future effect. By way of preferring appeal, the said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate authority had not disturbed the finding of guilt of the petitioner recorded by the Disciplinary Authority but it had reduced the punishment imposed to a scale of pay lower i.e. Rs. 6375/- than the existing scale of pay i.e. Rs. 6725/- of the petitioner for a period of one year with no future effect. 7.1. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and submitted that the punishment referred above is covered under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 only and it is thus undoubtedly covered under minor punishment and not covered under major punishment and department has wrongly considered it to be a major punishment. According to the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, in an appeal filed by the petitioner as referred above, the punishment was reduced whereby the petitioner was placed in the original pay scale without future effect for one year and that no such order was passed in respect of annual increment whether it will be given or not to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be termed as major punishment. 7.2. Rule 6 (1) of Part III Discipline of the Rules mentions various punishments that may be imposed upon a civil servant. Sub-rule (1) to (4) of the above referred Part III of the Rules reads as under: “. . . Minor Penalities ++(1) Censure (2) Withholding of increments or promotion. (3) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. (4) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the Government servant will earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further increments of pay. (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) . . . . . . . . . . . .” —————————————————————————————— ++ ‘Censure’ deleted vide GN/GAD/No. GS/12/CDR/1095/539/inq.cell, dated 16.05.1996. 7.3. As discussed above, punishment of reduction of pay to a scale lower than the existing pay scale for a period of one year with no future effect has been imposed upon the petitioner and in my view, such punishment falls under major punishment and it covers under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules and it is not a minor punishment. The contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that minor punishment has been imposed upon him is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law. Minor punishments have been enumerated in Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 6 and the nature of punishment imposed on the petitioner is not included under the heading “Minor Penalities” in Rule 6 as submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Minor punishments have been enumerated in Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 6 and the nature of punishment imposed on the petitioner is not included under the heading “Minor Penalities” in Rule 6 as submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. The further argument of the petitioner is that the order imposing punishment does not mention that the petitioner will not be entitled for promotion and, therefore, such arrangement has to be termed as minor punishment, in my view, has no substance and is without any legal force. Punishments are classified as minor or major punishment on the basic rules governing the nature of punishment and not by mentioning or not mentioning in the order of punishment that such punishment shall entitle or disentitle the guilty government servant from future promotion. 8. The argument that punishment was imposed on 12.07.2005 and the same came to an end in the year 2006 and thereafter the petitioner is entitled to get promotion in the year 2009-2010 is misconceived and no basis of sound principles of law. No person has any right to promotion but he has only right to be considered for promotion. The petitioner has been considered for promotion and his name was forwarded to the Departmental Promotion Committee which met on 17.2.2009 for promotion to the post of Police Inspector along with the names of other Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner was not found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee and accordingly his name was not recommended for promotion to the post of Police Inspector. It is pertinent to note that this decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee was as such accepted by the petitioner and the same has not been challenged by him. Again the name of the petitioner was recommended for being considered for promotion to the Departmental Promotion Committee when it met on 22.3.2010. The suitability of a candidate has to be assessed on the basis of the overall service record with particular reference to the Annual Confidential Reports of the preceding five years. Again the name of the petitioner was recommended for being considered for promotion to the Departmental Promotion Committee when it met on 22.3.2010. The suitability of a candidate has to be assessed on the basis of the overall service record with particular reference to the Annual Confidential Reports of the preceding five years. The Committee evaluated the service record of the petitioner and found that he has an adverse entry in his ACR for the year 2004-2005 and that major punishment has been imposed on him in the preceding five years and, therefore, after due consideration the Committee did not find the petitioner suitable for promotion and it has been submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the respondents that the Committee had not recommended his name for promotion to the post of Police Inspector. In my view, the said evaluation has been done by the Departmental Promotion Committee objectively in just and impartial manner for which sufficient reasons have been given for the suitability or otherwise of the petitioner for recommending for promotion. 9. The second ground is that remark of “average” performance made in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner written for the period 16.08.2004 to 31.3.2005. The learned Senior Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Reporting Officer in case of the petitioner, who at the relevant time was a Police Sub-Inspector, was the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Reviewing Officer was the Superintendent of Police. Since this remark was to be considered adverse to the petitioner, the same was communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner made a representation against the said remark to the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Ahmedabad Range. The said representation was rejected by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Ahmedabad Range by an order dated 12.04.2006. This decision dated 12.04.2006 was accepted by the petitioner and thus the adverse remarks in the report of 2004-2005 were operating and effective against the petitioner when the Departmental Promotion Committee met and first considered the case of the petitioner for promotion on 17.2.2009. In fact, the petitioner had acquiesced with the order of the Accepting Authority retaining the adverse remarks in his service report. In fact, the petitioner had acquiesced with the order of the Accepting Authority retaining the adverse remarks in his service report. Only after the Departmental Promotion Committee found the petitioner unfit for promotion that he filed Special Civil Application No. 3683 of 2009 on 16.04.2009 praying for a direction to the Committee to reconsider his case for promotion by either ignoring the adverse remarks or treating the said remarks as good. The said petition was disposed by an order dated 20.04.2009 without expressing any opinion on merits with a direction to the concerned respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner made a fresh representation to the Director General of Police, Gujarat State on 5.06.2009. The said representation was rejected by the Office of the Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State by an order dated 31.08.2009. This order has not been challenged by the petitioner and has thus attained finality. The petitioner thereafter made another representation on 12.10.2009 seeking the same relief that was sought in the earlier representation dated 5.6.2009. By an order dated 2.03.2010, the office of Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State allowed the request of the petitioner and expunged the adverse remarks from the report of 2004-05. It is submitted that apart from the fact that the Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State had no power to review his earlier decision dated 31.8.2009 rejecting the representation for expunging the adverse remarks from the report of 2004-05 more particularly in absence of any express power and change in circumstances or surfacing of any new facts or circumstances, the said order is also not in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 31.3.1989 issued by the Government in its General Administration Department as well as the earlier Government Resolution dated 29.01.1977. The Resolution of 1989 dealing primarily with the manner of writing and maintaining annual confidential reports of government servants states that once a decision has been taken by the Accepting Authority on a representation made by the government servant no further representation shall be entertained in regard to the adverse remark in the confidential report which was the subject matter of representation. Even the Resolution of 1977 provides that once a decision has been taken on a representation against adverse remark by the appropriate authority, which is an officer one stage higher than the reviewing officer, then no further representation is to be entertained in regard to the adverse remarks in the report which was the subject matter of the representation. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, the Reporting Officer of the petitioner was Dy. Superintendent of Police. An officer higher than the Deputy Superintendent of Police is the Superintendent of Police, who in case of the petitioner was his Reviewing Officer. In hierarchy, an officer higher than the Superintendent of Police is the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It is submitted that being well aware of the hierarchy and the channel of submission, the petitioner had made a representation to the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Ahmedabad Range, who was an officer one stage higher than the Reviewing Officer and the appropriate authority in terms of Resolution dated 29.01.1977. Once the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ahmedabad Range to whom the petitioner had made a representation for expunging the adverse remarks rejected the representation, no further representation could have been entertained from the petitioner in respect of the adverse remarks which were the subject matter of representation made before the appropriate authority. It is for this reason that the Director of Police & Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 5.06.2009 made pursuant to the court order as being not maintainable and against the provisions of law. The subsequent order dated 2.03.2010 passed by the office of the Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State expunging the adverse remarks for the period 2004-2005, which were the subject matter of representations made to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ahmedabad Range and the Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State, was thus improper and without any authority of law. It is for this reason that the Departmental Promotion Committee rightly did not consider the said order dated 2.3.2010 and on the basis of evaluation of the service record of the petitioner not recommended him for promotion. It is pertinent to mention that between 2006 and 2009, the petitioner never questioned the competence of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to function as the Accepting/Appropriate Authority. It is pertinent to mention that between 2006 and 2009, the petitioner never questioned the competence of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to function as the Accepting/Appropriate Authority. It is therefore, now not open for the petitioner to suggest that the Deputy Inspector General of Police is not the appropriate authority. Even otherwise, the said contention is misconceived as the Deputy Inspector General of Police is an officer superior to the Superintendent of Police is the submission made by the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent and I find myself in agreement with the same. 10. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that principles of estoppel is a well known principle and once the State Government has taken a step for considering the representation dated 12.10.2009 and thereafter decision dated 2.3.2010 was taken and communicated to the petitioner and, therefore, now the Director General of Police or the State Government cannot take the stand that it was wrongly done and, therefore, in such cases, the principles of estoppel will be applicable. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. In the case of Sidhbali Steels Limited and Anr. vs. U.P and Ors., [ (2011) 3 SCC 193 ]. 2. In the case of (M/s. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr., (AIR 2010 SCW 6952). 3. U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sant Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. and Ors., ( AIR 2008 SC 693 ). 4. State of Punjab vs. M/s. Nestle India Ltd. & Anr., (AIR 2004 SC 4559). As mentioned on page No. 3765 of Judicial Officer’s Law Lexicon by Justice C.K. Thakkar Edition 2008, it is important to note that doctrine of “promissory estoppel” has been evolved by the Courts, on the principles of equity, to avoid injustice. “Promissory Estoppel” in Black’s Law Dictionary, is indicated to mean that a party is prevented by his own acts from claiming a right to the detriment of the other party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and has acted accordingly. As such this principle has been evolved by equity to avoid injustice and such promise is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of promise. As such this principle has been evolved by equity to avoid injustice and such promise is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of promise. In this case, the above referred representation dated 12.10.2009 is at page No. 33 and the decision dated 2.3.2010 taken on it is at page No. 38. As referred at length hereinabove, the petitioner has filed Special Civil Application No. 3683 of 2009 on 16.4.2009 praying for a direction to the Committee to reconsider his case for promotion by either ignoring the adverse remarks or treating the said remarks as ‘good.’. Without expressing any opinion on merits, it was disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant to that order, fresh representation dated 5.6.2009 was made by the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Gujarat State which was rejected by order dated 31.8.2009. As such that chapter appears to have closed therein and the said order dated 31.8.2009 has not been challenged and as such it has got its finality. However, without mentioning the said important fact, another representation dated 12.10.2009 was made and a favourable order dated 2.3.2010 was obtained by the petitioner. It is important to note that in the representation dated 12.10.2009 the fact that the previous representation on the same line has been made by the petitioner and the orders passed thereon has not been mentioned by the petitioner. Thus, in my view, the said order was obtained by suppression of material facts and now he seeks benefit of principles of estoppel. In my view, principles of estoppel will not attract to such cases and the plea of promissory estoppel is not available to such an above referred action of the petitioner and under the circumstance, with a view not to burden the record, I am not discussing the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner as those cases will not be applicable to the present case for the reasons mentioned above. 11. Learned AGP for the respondent has submitted that it is for this reason that the Departmental Promotion Committee rightly did not consider the said order dated 2.3.2010 and on the basis of evaluation of the service record of the petitioner, not recommended him for promotion. 11. Learned AGP for the respondent has submitted that it is for this reason that the Departmental Promotion Committee rightly did not consider the said order dated 2.3.2010 and on the basis of evaluation of the service record of the petitioner, not recommended him for promotion. There appears force and substance and merit in the said submissions and I find myself in agreement with the same. 12. So far as the allegation of discrimination vis-a-vis other Government servants whose names have been mentioned in the written submissions is concerned, the respondent had covered that aspect in Paras 4 and 5 of his written submissions dated 21.11.2011 along with the documents annexed vide separate annexures. I find myself in agreement with the same and there appears no discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner. Under the above circumstances, the order of the Departmental Promotion Committee does not call for any interference by this court and the present petition challenging the said order dated 7.10.2010 is devoid of any merit and hence the same is dismissed. 13. In the result, this Special Civil Application fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. P P P P P