Non consideration of the petitioner for promotion from the rank of Inspector to the rank of Assistant Commandant (General Duty), by constituting a supplementary DPC for the vacancy year 2010-2011 forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
2. The sequence of events is as follows:
The petitioner joined service of the second respondent on 1.05.1977 as a Constable GD. He was promoted as a Head Constable in December 1979 and then as a Sub-Inspector on September 1988 and thereafter to the rank of Inspector with effect from 15.05.1995. It is stated that, for further promotion, the petitioner had to complete two mandatory courses, one Platoon Commander (TAC) and the other one Company Commander (TAC). As the petitioner was included in the 'Low Medical Category' with effect from March, 1999 onwards for nearly a decade, as per the relevant promotion Rules, the petitioner admittedly was not eligible for being considered. But the Rules have undergone change with effect from 2.3.2006 as borne by Ext.R1(B) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, whereby a person, despite being included in the 'Low Medical Category', is permitted to undergo the mandatory courses at his own risk. In the said circumstance, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 application before the third respondent on 27.11.2008 for permitting him to participate in the mandatory courses.
3. It is stated that, the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected. But the said order is not produced before this Court; nor is there any challenge in this regard. Subsequently, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the first mandatory course i.e., Platoon Commander Course (Tactical) and he came out successfully in the year 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the second mandatory course i.e., Company Commander Course (Tactical) with effect from 11.1.2010 as borne by Ext.P2 dated 23.11.2009. But by virtue of the relevant recruitment rules, a cut off date was prescribed for being considered for promotion by the DPC, stipulating the same as 1.1.2010 and necessarily the petitioner has to complete the mandatory courses on or before the said date for consideration for promotion for the vacancy year 2010- 2011. Since the petitioner had participated in the course only subsequently, i.e., after the cut off date, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application to be considered by the DPC, more so when he was already undergoing the second course as permitted vide Ext.P2.
4. The application preferred by the petitioner was forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent vide Ext.P4 dated 12.4.2010. Since the same was not considered favourably, the petitioner was constrained to file Ext.P5 before the second respondent for special consideration. This however was rejected vide Ext.P6 dated 29.07.2010, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
5. As mentioned herein before, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents referring to the facts and figures and asserting that the petitioner does not have any legally remediable cause of action, in so far as, the cut off date stipulated was 1.1.2010 and the petitioner admittedly was not qualified on or before the said date, to be considered for promotion vacancy in the year 2010-2011, as per the relevant rules.
6. Heard both the sides in detail.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application as early as in the year 2008, and had it been considered on time, there was every chance for having been promoted to the next category, more so, in view of the amended rules, whereby the petitioner was permitted to participate in the mandatory course, despite being included in the 'Low Medical Category'. The petitioner, however, was permitted to participate in the first mandatory course only in the year 2010, followed by the subsequent participation in the second mandatory course as well. This resulted in delay, which hence is sought to be remedied by filing Ext.P3 as well as P5 application for consideration/special consideration. This aspect has not been considered while rejecting the claim vide Ext.P6, which is sought to be assailed in the writ petition.
8. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submits on the other hand that, there is absolutely no merits or bonafides in the writ petition in so far as, the petitioner was admittedly included in the 'Low Medical Category' with effect from 1996 onwards and that he chose to file Ext.P1 application only at the fag end of his career i.e., on 27.11.2008, despite the fact that, he knew very well that he was to retire from service on 31.7.2010. By virtue of his being included in the 'Low Medical Category', the petitioner enjoyed various benefits such as, exemption from undergoing rigorous drills, exemption from carrying heavy arms and such other benefits. After enjoying all these benefits, at the eleventh hour, the petitioner chose to file Ext.P1 application in the year 2008 seeking for permitting him to participate in the mandatory courses. Still, Ext.P1 application preferred in the last week of November was considered favourably and it was accordingly, that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the first mandatory course, which was completed by him on 24.10.2009.
9. The application preferred by the petitioner for permitting him to participate in the second mandatory course was only on 13.8.2009, which was considered and he was permitted to participate in the same vide Ext.P2 dated 23.11.2009. True, it was after the cut off date for consideration by the DPC. But there was absolutely no lapse or failure on the part of the respondents in considering the petitioner for being sent to the mandatory course. Despite this, the application preferred by the petitioner for special consideration was forwarded by the concerned respondents to the Ministry and it was after considering all the facts and figures, that a conscious decision was taken by the Ministry rejecting the claim, which led to Ext.P6. This being the position, the impugned order is not assailable under any circumstance, submits the learned Central Government Counsel.
10. As observed by this Court in the earlier paragraphs, the order rejecting Ext.P1 application earlier, has not been produced before this Court, nor is there any challenge with regard to this. Similarly, there is no dispute that the petitioner submitted the application only on 27.11.2008 and that the matter was considered and the petitioner was permitted to participate in the first mandatory course immediately thereafter, followed by Ext.P2 permission granted for the second mandatory course. This Court does not find any delay or callous inaction on the part of the concerned respondent in considering the claim. That apart, the Rules specifically stipulate the cut off date for being considered by the DPC as 1.1.2010. The Rules are not under challenge. This being the position, the challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext. P6 is not liable to be entertained. That apart, Ext.P6 has been passed after taking the matter before the competent authority, i.e., the Government, who rejected the claim and the said order is not produced and is not under challenge.
In the said circumstance, this Court finds that the writ petition is devoid of any merits or bonafides. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-