Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lakha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2023
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18011/2019
Lakha Ram S/o Shri Simartha Ram, Aged About 44 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o Village Dharasar, Tehsil Chauhtan, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Cid (Cb) (Member Secretary),
Selection Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG &
Mr. Kailash Choudhary, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 10/01/2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed against the non- promotion of the petitioner on the post of Inspector of Police from the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
The controversy in short is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub Inspector vide order dated 11/11/1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 03/10/2011 and was ultimately dismissed from service vide order dated 13/12/2011. The order of dismissal was challenged by (Downloaded on 11/01/2023 at 10:38:16 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-18011/2019] the petitioner by way of filing a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11858/2015 - Lakha Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 20/02/2018 with the following directions :-
"In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 13.12.2011 and 14.05.2015 are quashed and set aside. However, the Disciplinary Authority may proceed with the inquiry, if the respondents so decides by giving proper charge-sheet and holding proper statutory inquiry in accordance with the Rules of 1958. The respondents shall also be at liberty to put the petitioner under suspension during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, in case the respondents decides to do so. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to claim all the consequential benefits strictly in accordance with law. No order as to costs".
Aggrieved against the order dated 20.02.2018, the State Government filed an appeal, but the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01/08/2018. The petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 26/02/2019. After the reinstatement, the petitioner was not promoted on the post of Inspector and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was eligible for promotion on the post of Inspector as he has passed the requisite tests and despite being in the merit list, the promotion has not been accorded to him. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be promoted on the post of Inspector.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the case of the petitioner had been considered in accordance with (Downloaded on 11/01/2023 at 10:38:16 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-18011/2019] the Rules and since the petitioner has not secured the minimum marks in the selection process, he has not been accorded promotion. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the letter dated 10/01/2023 as well as the Board proceedings before this Court, wherein it is stated that despite consideration of five years' APARs, the petitioner has not secured the requisite marks for promotion to the post of Inspector. He further submits that as per the Board proceedings, the case of the petitioner has been considered and since five years' APARs from 2013-14 to 2017-18 were not available, therefore, preceding five years' APARs have been take into account for allocation of the marks in the present case. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition may be dismissed.
The letter dated 10/01/2023 and the Board proceedings are taken on record.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case.
In the present case, since the factual matrix is not disputed before this Court and only the question which remains to be adjudicated in the present case is that whether the respondents were correct in considering the five APARs of the petitioner preceding the date of dismissal. As per letter dated 10/01/2023, the APARs from 2008-09 to 2012-13 have been taken into account for calculation of the marks. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 13/12/2011 and since the petitioner was not in service after 13/12/2011, therefore, the APARs of 2012-13 could not have been taken into consideration by the respondents instead the APAR of 2007-08 should have been taken into consideration while calculating the marks towards the (Downloaded on 11/01/2023 at 10:38:16 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-18011/2019] APARs of preceding five years. Since in the present case, the marks of APAR of 2007-08 has not been taken into consideration while calculating the marks for the preceding five years, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider five years' APARs of the petitioner for allocation of the marks from the year 2007-08 to 2011-12. After the calculation of the marks from the year 2007-08 to 2011-12, in case the petitioner is found suitable then he may be granted promotion on the post of Inspector, if he is otherwise qualified to be promoted as per the rules.
The entire exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 11-SanjayS/-
(Downloaded on 11/01/2023 at 10:38:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)