Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
The relief sought in the present writ petition is a mandamus to command the respondents-authorities to open seal cover envelope regarding the result of the departmental/ranker promotion examination to the post of Sub Inspector conducted in the year 2011.
The facts are that the petitioner, who was working as Constable, appeared in the ranker examination for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sub Inspector. However, his result was not declared and kept in a seal cover.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner cleared the written examination, physical examination and also group discussion but his result was not declared on account of involvement of the petitioner in criminal case crime no. 62 of 2010 under Section 504/506 IPC and criminal case crime no. 155 of 2011, under Section 409 IPC, converted into Section 379 IPC. It is further submitted that even though the final report has been submitted in the caid case on 22.03.2012 and he has also been exonerated from all the charges in the disciplinary enquiry as per order dated 25.03.2012 but for the reasons best known his result was not declared and was kept in a seal cover. It is further submitted that neither any disciplinary enquiry is pending against the petitioner nor there is any other criminal case yet the respondents-authorities are not opening the seal cover on account of which, the petitioner is being deprived from being sent for training and promotion to the post of Sub Inspector.
In case the final report has been submitted in the criminal case and the charges in the disciplinary proceedings were not found to be established then the respondents cannot be said to be justified in keeping the result of the petitioner in seal cover and not opening the same. However, the question whether seal cover process was adopted in the case of the petitioner on account of the aforesaid criminal case and departmental proceedings in which he alleges to have been exonerated and the final report has been submitted or for any other justifiable reason is a purely question of fact. Same is the position with respect to the averments made by the petitioner that no other disciplinary proceedings or criminal case is pending against him.
The controversy being purely factual in nature, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending and calling for a counter affidavit in as much as the training has also started. The factual controversy can very well be looked into by the fact finding authority initially.
The pleadings also go to show that the petitioner has made a representation before the authorities but it appears that no decision has been taken.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Secretary, U. P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, the respondent no. 2, with respect to his grievance along with a certified copy of this order within a period of ten days from today. In case such representation is made, the said authority after verifying the fact that there is no embargo in opening the seal cover, shall open the same within 10 days of the making of the representation and in case, the petitioner has qualified the examination, he shall be allowed to go for training forthwith. After completion of training the decision with respect to appointment of the petitioner shall be taken in the light of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997, Rules 2008 and also taking into consideration the disciplinary proceedings, enquiry or criminal cases pending or continuing against him. It is clarified that mere completion of training would not confer any vested right on the petitioner. However, in case the respondent no. 5 finds that there is some legal impediment in opening the seal cover he shall record reasons for not opening seal cover which shall be communicated to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 20.9.2012 Dcs