Chattisgarh High Court
Balram Prasad Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 9 December, 2021
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No.4472 of 2010
Balram Prasad Shukla, S/o Late Lakhan Lal Shukla, aged about 46
years, R/o Near D.L.S. College, Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur
(C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Home,
Mantralaya, D K S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Inspector General, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner: Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate. For Respondents/State: Mr. Lalit Jangde, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 09/12/2021
1. The petitioner herein calls in question his non-promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector though he passed in the departmental examination in the year 2005 itself.
2. The petitioner is a Head Constable and after having completed ten years of service as Head Constable, he appeared in the departmental examination for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector held in the year 2005 which he is said to have passed and after the said examination, he had already undergone the requisite training for 45 days for the promotional post, but he was not promoted, which he has challenged in this writ petition.
3. The Police Headquarter had issued Amended SOP No.24/2002 dated 2 23.10.2002 for promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector 'A' Grade & 'B' Grade. The criteria fixed for promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector is at clause 3 of the SOP which states as under: -
ik=rk%& l-m-fu- ^^v** oxZ dh ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus ds fy;s iz/kku&vkj{kd dks ijh{kk o"kZ dh igyh tuojh dh fLFkfr esa fuEufyf[kr vgZrk;saA ¼v½ iz/kku vkj{kd dks vkj{kd dk csfld izf'k{kd ,oa vkj{kd ls iz/kku vkj{kd in dk ih-ih- dkslZ mRrh.kZ gksuk pkfg;sA ¼c½ mRre vkpj.k gks& mRre vkpj.k ls vfHkizk; gS fd iz/kku vkj{kd foxr 5 o"kksZa esa cM+h ltk u feyh gksA blh izdkj fiNys 5 o"kksZa esa izkIr NksVh ltkvksa dh la[;k blh vof/k esa izkIr bukeksa ls vf/kd u gks o budh lafu"Bk ¼baVhfxzVh@yk;fyVh½ esa lansg ugha gks iz/kku vkj{kd dh lafu"Bk izeq[k }kjk lR;kfir dh tkosxhA
4. A careful perusal of the aforesaid criteria would show that the Head Constable must have passed the basic training and the P.P. Course and secondly, that he must not have awarded 5 years major punishment for the last five years and rewards granted to be more than the punishment and integrity should not be doubtful.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of clause 3(b) of the SOP, his case has not been considered and he has not been promoted despite passing the examination and undergoing the training for the promotional post. However, it is the case of the respondents that minor punishment awarded is more than the rewards received by the petitioner.
6. The consideration is, whether the petitioner has rightly been refused promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector?
7. Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would 3 submit that the petitioner is fully qualified and no major punishment as on January, 2005 has been awarded to him for last five years and the punishment which he has received is minor punishment which are less and awards are more, therefore, he is entitled for promotion, whereas, it is the submission of Mr. Lalit Jangde, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State / respondents, that minor punishments imposed upon the petitioner are more and rewards are less, therefore, he has not been promoted.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.
9. A careful perusal of the record would show that the dispute revolves on the issue whether the petitioner is qualified for promotion in view of clause 3(b) of the SOP dated 23-10-2002. The petitioner has not mentioned how many rewards he has received during last five years as on the year of examination and the respondents have also not clearly mentioned the number of minor punishments and the number of rewards received by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to decide whether the petitioner was eligible for promotion or not in terms of the SOP dated 23-10-2002. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to make representation to respondent No.2 raising all submissions and grievances along with all relevant materials and a copy of this order within 30 days from today which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within 3 months from the date of receipt of representation. Respondent No.2 shall consider the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion in the light of clause 3(b) and other relevant criteria of the SOP. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 4
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma