The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging promotion orders on the ground that the petitioner was excluded based on low merit rather than seniority, finding no merit in the case.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP(T) No. 11195 of 2008. Date of Decision: 4th September, 2012.
_________________________________________________________
Shri Jai Nand Thakur, son of Shri Tulsi Ram, resident of Village Sheel, Post Office Chekul, via Kingal, District Shimla, H.P. presently posted as Sub Inspector in the Office of the State CID, Shimla, H.P.
….Petitioner.
Versus
All the respndents are C/o Director General of Police, H.P. Shimla.
.Respondents.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dalip Singh Khachi, Advocate.
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
For respondents No.1 and 2: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General
Dev Darshan, J. (oral)
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein praying that further promotions may not be made to the rank of Inspectors, respondents No.3 to 12 be restrained from working as Inspectors, Annexure A-13 which is the order issued by the Director General of Police on 28.2.2004 promoting the Sub Inspectors to officiating Inspectors be quashed, Annexure A-14 another order dated 31.3.2004 promoting three Sub Inspectors as officiating Inspectors and Annexure A-15 is the order to the same effect in so far as it relates to respondents No.3 to 12 be quashed and set aside.
3
the names were recommended. Respondents No. 3 to 12 were higher in merit and in these circumstances, the petitioner could not be found eligible.
( Dev Darshan Sud), 4th September, 2012. Judge (jai)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's exclusion from the promotion list violates merit-cum-seniority rules.
Whether the promotion orders appointing other officers as Inspectors should be quashed.
Whether the selection procedure contained any malafide or irregularity.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Jai Nand Thakur
The State of H.P. through Secretary (Home)
Director General of Police, H.P.
Basti Ram
Hem Singh
other Inspectors
Dev Darshan Sud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
