Allahabad High Court
Bharat Bhushan Singh Constable Pac And 4 ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 4 December, 2019
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 54384 of 2015 Petitioner :- Bharat Bhushan Singh Constable Pac And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rastrapati Khare,Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay,Vidhya Shanker Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. Petitioners are substantively appointed Constables in U.P. Police. It appears that they participated in the rankers examination for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector for which proceedings were initiated in the year 2012. The promotion was required to be considered in terms of U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008. Rule 5(1)(2) of the Rules contemplate 50% posts of Sub Inspector to be filled by promotion though Police Recruitment Board on the basis of departmental examination from amongst substantively appointed Constables and Head Constables in U.P. (Civil) Police who fulfills the eligibility condition stipulated in the rules. It appears that petitioners have qualified examination but their claim has been kept in sealed cover on account of pendency of criminal cases against them. The order in that regard, passed by the D.I.G. (Establishment) of U.P. Police dated 27.6.2014, contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition, is assailed in this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners' claim for promotion has been illegally kept in sealed cover contrary to the Govt. Order dated 28.5.1997. Submission is that petitioners are being prosecuted in criminal proceedings where charges are not serious and individual grievances are raised, and consequently their claim for promotion cannot be kept in sealed cover. Alternatively, it is submitted that a period of more than one year has expired since submission of charge sheet and trial has not concluded, and therefore, petitioners' claim for adhoc promotion ought to be considered in terms of the paragraph (10) of the Govt. Order dated 28.5.1997.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Police Recruitment Board denying the averments made in the writ petition. According to the respondents, the petitioners since are facing criminal proceedings, as such their candidature has rightly been placed in sealed cover.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record.
5. Admittedly, criminal proceedings are pending against all the petitioners. Charge sheets have been submitted and the matter is pending before the competent criminal court. In view of the Govt. Order dated 28.5.1997 the authorities were justified in placing the petitioners' candidature in sealed cover awaiting outcome of criminal proceedings. The order passed by the authority concerned, under challenge, therefore, suffers from no illegality.
6. The argument advanced on behalf of petitioners that the criminal cases have been lodged by individual persons, and therefore, no element of public interest is involved for which petitioners' candidature could be placed in sealed cover, is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as the allegations made against all the petitioners have been investigated and ultimately charge sheets have been filed. The crime is against the State and is also being prosecuted by the State itself. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that no element of public interest is involved or that the sealed cover procedure could not be followed.
7. The alternative submission advanced on behalf of petitioners with reference to clause 10 of the Govt. Order dated 28.5.1997 is required to be considered. Clause (10) of the aforesaid Govt. Order reads as under:-
"¼10½ p;u lfefr }kjk izFke ckj vkjksfir dkfeZd dh izksUufr ij fopkj djus ,oa eqgj cUn fyQkQs dh izfdz;k viuk;s tkus ds ckn ,d o"kZ dh vof/k chr tkus ij Hkh ¼bl vof/k esa ,slh vof/k vkxf.kr ugha tk;sxh ftlesa vipkjh dkfeZd }kjk vo/;ksx ds dkj.k tkWp izfdz;k esa foyEc gqvk½ ;fn vkjksfir dkfeZd ds fc"k; esa iz'kklukf/kdj.k dh tkWp foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh @ vfHk;kstu dk vafre ifj.kke izkIr u gqvk gks] rks ,sls dkfeZdksa ds fc"k; esa] tks fuyfEcr ugha gS@ p;u lfefr }kjk fuEufyf[kr izfrcU/kkssa ds lkFk rnFkZ vk/kkj ij izksUufr ds lEcU/k esa fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA
-----------------
-----------------"
8. It appears that a period of more than one year has expired since petitioners' candidature has been placed in sealed cover and the trial has not been concluded so far. In that view of the matter, petitioners' claim for grant of adhoc promotion in terms of the Govt. Order dated 28.5.1997 is required to be considered by the respondents themselves.
9. This writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.2 to examine petitioners' claim for grant of adhoc promotion in terms of the Govt. Order dated 28.5.1997, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Petitioners' claim for regular promotion shall also be considered as and when criminal proceedings are concluded depending upon its outcome.
Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Ashok Kr.