Prayers: Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (for short ‘Dy.S.P.’) as similarly situated persons and even below in rank to the petitioner have already been granted promotion to the said post but the petitioner though fulfills the requisite qualification and being eligible in all respects has been denied the said benefits. Further prayer has been made for quashing part of the Order dated 11.12.2023, passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission presided by its Chairman (respondent No. 5), whereby the petitioner has been deprived from promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. on the ground that in view of Order No. 99 of the Jharkhand Police Order, the number of Major and Minor Punishment is more than the number of Awards achieved by the petitioner. Factual Matrix: 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police and he joined the said post on 05.09.1994 in the State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand and since then, he was discharging his duties to the full satisfaction of the Higher Authorities. Thereafter, on completion of more than 21 years of services as Sub-Inspector of Police, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Inspector in the month of April-May, 2015 and since then he is working on the said post and no complaint whatsoever was alleged against the petitioner. It is the case of petitioner that considering the eligibility criteria for the post of Dy.S.P., the competent authority has considered the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the said post and accordingly, his name appeared at Sl. No. 63 in the Seniority-cum-Merit list prepared under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 4, as contained in memo no. 1426 dated 01.12.2023. It is the specific case of petitioner that though his name appeared in the Seniority-cum-Merit list but surprisingly, in the final list as contained in memo No. 6276 dated 28.12.2023 the name of petitioner did not appear inspite of the fact that at the time of consideration, no departmental proceeding was pending against him. 1426 dated 01.12.2023. It is the specific case of petitioner that though his name appeared in the Seniority-cum-Merit list but surprisingly, in the final list as contained in memo No. 6276 dated 28.12.2023 the name of petitioner did not appear inspite of the fact that at the time of consideration, no departmental proceeding was pending against him. It is the further case of petitioner that similarly situated and even persons below in rank to the petitioner have already been granted promotion to the said post but the petitioner though fulfills the requisite qualification and being eligible in all respects has been denied the said benefits. 3. Finding no other way, petitioner preferred representation before the Principal Secretary, Home and Disaster Management through the Director General of Police, Jharkhand as well as to the Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi requesting therein to consider his case for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. since petitioner possessed all the requisite qualifications and has completed required length of service for promotion to the said post. But the respondents have not taken any decision as yet and as such, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. Submissions of Petitioner: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner has not been awarded any major punishment after 2013 and therefore, the punishment which has been awarded in the year 2013 has no effect on the date of the Board Meeting held on 11.12.2023. Learned counsel submits that as per Rule-726(iii) of the Police Manual, the major penalty which has been awarded before 3 years back has no effects on the promotion specifically when the Promotion Committee was considering the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Police Inspector to the post of Dy.S.P. on 11.12.2023. Learned counsel further argues that from perusal of Order No. 99 read with Order No. 838 nowhere it transpires that any major punishment has been awarded to the petitioner in last 10 years. Learned counsel further argues that in a similar situation before the Police Department, in the promotion matter of one Budheshwar Oraon, the office of Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand clarified to the Superintendent of Police, Godda that Budheshwar Oraon has not been awarded any major punishment in the last 5 years and accordingly, directed the Superintendent of Police, Godda to comply with the order dated 14.05.2023. Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand clarified to the Superintendent of Police, Godda that Budheshwar Oraon has not been awarded any major punishment in the last 5 years and accordingly, directed the Superintendent of Police, Godda to comply with the order dated 14.05.2023. The case of present petitioner is situated on the same and similar footings and as such, he is also entitled to get promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. Learned counsel further argues that respondents cannot be allowed to adopt pick and choose method in granting promotion to the similarly situated and even persons below in rank to the petitioner and denying the said benefits to the present petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that in case of Sada Shiv Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2014 (1) JLJR 451 , the Hon’ble Court held that as per Rule-726(iii) of the Jharkhand Police Manual, the effect of three years should be calculated from the date of occurrence on which wrong was done and not from the date on which punishment was awarded and as such, keeping in view of the ratio laid down in the said case, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. To support his contention, learned counsel places reliance on the following judgments: (I) Ram Anugrah Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [ 1992(1) PLJR 502 ]; (II) Subhash Singh Vs. State of M.P. [2024 SCC Online MP 1198]. Submissions of Respondents: 5. Learned counsel for respondent-State by vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the office of the D.I.G., Santhal Pargana, Dumka vide memo No. 539 dated 10.03.2023 has denied to give recommendation for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Dy.S.P. due to pendency of the Departmental Proceeding. Thereafter, on the basis of recommendation of the DIG, the Regional Selection Committee decided and declared the petitioner to be ineligible for promotion and communicated the same to the Home Department vide letter No. 152/P dated 15.03.2023. Thereafter, on the basis of recommendation of the DIG, the Regional Selection Committee decided and declared the petitioner to be ineligible for promotion and communicated the same to the Home Department vide letter No. 152/P dated 15.03.2023. Learned counsel further argues that the Departmental Promotion Committee presided by the Chairman, JPSC was held on 11.12.2023 for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. in which the case of petitioner for promotion was duly considered and he was declared ineligible for promotion in terms of Police Order No. 99, which provides that a person is unfit for promotion if number of punishment (cumulative of minor and major punishment) is more than the award obtained by the concerned Police Officer. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has himself admitted that he has been awarded 52 minor punishments and 6 major punishments and has 56 Awards. As such, the petitioner in terms of Police Order No. 99 is ineligible for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. and as such, rightly his case has not been considered by the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that case laws relied upon by the petitioner is not similar to that of the present case and as such, not applicable. Learned counsel lastly submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC adopts the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-State and submits that since petitioner was found ineligible by the DPC rightly he was not granted promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. Findings of the Court: 7. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of petitioner needs consideration. From the impugned order it appears that though the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion but the same stood rejected on the ground that petitioner has more number of punishments (minor and major) than the awards he achieved. The respondents have held that as per Police Order No. 99 the petitioner is not fit for promotion and hence, his case was turned down. 8. Admittedly, a person cannot be denied promotion only because there was certain charges against him or awards received by him are lesser in number than the punishments imposed. 9. The respondents have held that as per Police Order No. 99 the petitioner is not fit for promotion and hence, his case was turned down. 8. Admittedly, a person cannot be denied promotion only because there was certain charges against him or awards received by him are lesser in number than the punishments imposed. 9. The issue regarding applicability of Police Order No. 99 fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in case of Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1993) 1 PLJR 513 , wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under: “12. The question as to whether a person would be entitled to promotion or not would depend upon the nature of punishment, the date of imposition of punishment and other relevant factors. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that a person is not to be denied his due promotion only because he was placed under suspension, although ultimately no order of punishment was passed against him.” The same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in case of Bhagwan Shankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., disposed of on 24.06.1997, whereby the Hon’ble Court observed that a person cannot be declared unfit for promotion merely on the ground that number of punishment is more than number of rewards. The Court rejecting the plea of the State issued a direction to consider the case of petitioner for promotion. 10. The stand of the respondents is that promotion is not an indefeasible right of an employee. There is right for consideration which has been done and as such, on this score no interference is warranted. Law is well settled that consideration, if any, should be made in proper perspective which was not done in the case of petitioner. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2008 (4) SCC 144 has held as under: 25. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2008 (4) SCC 144 has held as under: 25. The formation of the opinion by the State Government is with reference to the necessity that may have had arisen to make substantial modifications in the draft development plan. The expression: so considered necessary is again of crucial importance. The term “consider” means to think over; it connotes that there should be active application of the mind. In other words the term “consider” postulates consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter. A plain reading of the relevant provision suggests that the State Government may publish the modifications only after consideration that such modifications have become necessary. ……” 11. The rejection of the petitioner for promotion is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it does not prescribe any predictable period of disentitlement to promotional aspects. The date from which promotion has to be considered in a pending departmental proceeding or when a major or minor punishment is inflicted has been fully described in Rule 726(iii) of the Jharkhand Police Manual: “Rule 726 III. Disqualification for admission to a promotion list or retention thereon.—The infliction of any major punishment in any rank within the last 3 years may ordinarily be a bar to admission in any of the promotion lists. A gap of three years is necessary after the infliction of major punishment before an officer is retained or considered or reconsidered for any promotion list. For special reasons to be recorded, this dis-qualification may be relaxed by the competent officer who gives the promotion.” 12. The Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Anugrah Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1992) 1 PLJR 502 has held as under: “11. For special reasons to be recorded, this dis-qualification may be relaxed by the competent officer who gives the promotion.” 12. The Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Anugrah Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1992) 1 PLJR 502 has held as under: “11. Since this rule does not clearly provide as to when three years period of disability will start, therefore by police order 99, para 6 it was clarified that if police officer is awarded any major punishment then for the purpose of the aforesaid rule, the period of three years should be calculated from the date of occurrence and not from the date on which he has been awarded the punishment so that the delinquent may not suffer adversely for unnecessary delay in disposal of the departmental proceeding. Similar view has been taken by the State Government in the Resolution dated 17th May, 1982 adopted by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (Annexure 9). But by police amendment slip 1/86, para 6 of order no. 99 has been rescinded and in its place it has been provided that the period of three years will be reckoned from the date of awarding the punishment. In my considered view the date of punishment as the starting date for computing the three years period of disability for admission to promotion list is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and without any rational basis. The starting date for computation of a period of disability must be a certain and predictable date and it cannot vary from person to person because of laches, negligence or inaction committed by others. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath (1989 Supp (1) SCC 393 : AIR 1989 SC 1133 ), it has been held by the Supreme Court that denial of promotional prospects to a person for the default of Government would be unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary. If such a provision is allowed to stand, then even similarly situated persons can be treated differently for no fault of theirs. Therefore the amendment slip 1 of 86 is held to be irrational, unreasonable and discriminatory and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is quashed. If such a provision is allowed to stand, then even similarly situated persons can be treated differently for no fault of theirs. Therefore the amendment slip 1 of 86 is held to be irrational, unreasonable and discriminatory and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is quashed. In this view of the matter it is directed that the case of the petitioner for his promotion should be considered in accordance with Rule 726 read with the explanation contained in paragraph 6 of Police order 99 as issued originally, which is Annexure ‘8’ to the writ petition. The petitioner will be entitled to raise all other pleas both factual and legal, which may be available to him for defending himself in the departmental proceeding before the appellate authority, who will consider the same on merits and dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order.” 13. Similar issue was raised before this Court in Sada Shiv Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2014 (1) JLJR 451 it was held that cut-off for consideration of case of a Police Officer below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police for promotion shall be calculated from the date of occurrence on which the wrong was done and not from the date on which punishment was awarded. 14. Further contention of the respondents regarding major punishment in last 5 years and on that ground promotion was not considered is also surprising. No document has been filed by the respondents to show that any major punishment has been inflicted to the petitioner even in last 10 years. It has also been brought on record that one junior to the petitioner namely, Budheshwar Oraon, who has also not been awarded punishment in last 5 years, was considered for promotion and the case of petitioner is similar to that Budheshwar Oraon. In that view of the matter it is not open for the respondents to adopt pick and choose method and there was no occasions for the respondents not to consider the case of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground. 15. In that view of the matter it is not open for the respondents to adopt pick and choose method and there was no occasions for the respondents not to consider the case of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground. 15. Law is very clear that promotion is an incentive for a government employee to excel in his performance and if that incentive is denied then employee loses interest to improve his performance, particularly when junior to the petitioner has been granted promotion and also similarly situated persons considered on the same ground and petitioner denied which amounts to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, all these aspects of the matters were never considered by the respondent-State and as such, it can safely be construed that impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and is fit to be quashed and set aside. 16. Resultantly, the part of the order dated 11.12.2023, which relates to the present petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-State is directed to consider the case of petitioner in proper perspective taking into account the aforesaid legal propositions and orders and directions given by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. Needless to say since the case of the petitioner has been rejected on non est ground and the rejection order being not tenable in the eyes of law, respondents are directed to reconsider the case of petitioner by holding a fresh DPC, if required and pass orders for promotion of the petitioner, in accordance with law. If the petitioner satisfies all other eligibility criteria for grant of promotion, order to that effect be passed and petitioner be granted promotion with all consequential benefits from the date junior to him has been granted promotion. 17. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.