In a writ petition, the Court dismissed the petitioner's claim for promotion to Assistant Sub Inspector in the Railway Protection Force. The Court held that despite lost confidential reports and departmental instructions, the petitioner failed subsequent promotion processes and could not be granted relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 WP 7355 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 7355 of 2007
---Shri. S.S. Wagh, Advocate, for petitioner.
Smt. Dipali Jape-Ansingkar, Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri. D.V. Soman, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2 WP 7355 of 2007
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. Judgment reserved on : 3 April 2018 Judgment pronounced on : 6 April 2018.
JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):
3 WP 7355 of 2007
was not selected and respondent No.4 was selected and he stood first in the merit list of that category. He was also senior to the petitioner.
4 WP 7355 of 2007
contended that though such directions were given in the year 2007 on that basis the respondents ought to have reviewed the previous process and ought to have given promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector.
5 WP 7355 of 2007
of service on the date of the notification was held. It is contended that even if the best case possible is accepted the petitioner could not have got more than 65 marks. It is contended that as per the rules, respondent No.4 was required to be treated as senior to the petitioner as he had joined the service as Constable in the year 1989. It is contended that not only respondent No.4 but there were two other candidates who were Head Constables above the petitioner in the merit list prepared and due that circumstance the petitioner could not have got the promotion.
6 WP 7355 of 2007
"(v) Where one or more Confidential Reports have not been written for any reason during the relevant period, the Selection Committee should consider the Confidential Reports of the years preceding the period in question and if in any case even these are not available the Selection Committee should take the Confidential Reports of lower grade into account to complete the number of Confidential Report required to be considered. If this is also not possible all the available Confidential Reports should betaken into account."
7 WP 7355 of 2007
Court late, also no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner.
8 WP 7355 of 2007
Union of India) . In this case the Apex Court has laid down that it is necessary to communicate confidential reports to the employees and if the confidential reports are not communicated and due to that the employee looses the opportunity of getting promotion, direction can be given to give him hearing in respect of that confidential report and consider his case again. The submissions made and the record show that not only the petitioner but many persons were affected due to loss of the confidential reports of 3 years and further there were instructions of aforesaid nature which enable the Department to presume that the confidential report was of the lower grade to one which was prepared in the previous year. Admittedly, prior to the year 2000, the confidential report of the petitioner was not above ”good” and during the consideration period, 5 years prior to the date of notification he had not got confidential report of higher grade. In view of these circumstances no benefit of the observations made by the Apex Court can be given to the petitioner and there are more circumstances as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on some observations of other case, reported as 1991 Supp (2)
9 WP 7355 of 2007
SCC 126 (R.K. Singh v. State of U.P.) . In that case also entitlement of the employee of getting knowledge of adverse confidential report is discussed. On this point sufficient observations are made by this Court. For all the aforesaid reasons this Court holds that no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector given the loss of annual confidential reports.
Whether the petitioner should have been treated as senior to respondent No.4 despite the latter having joined as a Constable earlier.
Whether departmental instructions regarding unavailable confidential reports preclude granting a hearing or promotion to the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dev Dutt v. Union of IndiaReferred¶30
(2008) 8 SCC 725 · Who else cites this
R.K. Singh v. State of U.P.Referred¶32
1991 Supp (2) SCC 126 · Who else cites this
Roshan-Singh Sinsinwar
Union Government of India
Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force
Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force
Virendra Ojha
T.V. Nalawade
Sunil K. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
