This writ petition challenged an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for promotion to Commandant due to 'Good' grading. The court rejected the petition, distinguishing Dev Dutt as inapplicable to CISF exceptions and finding insufficient evidence that annexures reflected ACR grades.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:22510 WP No. 11232 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11232 OF 2013 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
M MUJIBULLA S/O M DASTAGI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS DEPUTY COMMANDENT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE(RETD) NOW R/A NO.37 SILVER OAK, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN PUTTENAHALLI EAST, J P NAGAR EAST BANGALORE-560078.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H R S RAO & K SREERAM.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:22510 WP No. 11232 of 2013
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT / ORDER DATED 10TH OCTOBER 2012 [ANNEXURE-G ORIGINAL] AS UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND UNTENABLE; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE A REQUISITION TO THE UPSC TO CONVENE THE REVIEW DPC IN VIEW OF THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS TO RECONSIDER THE CASE OF PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF COMMANDANT FROM THE DATE IT WAS DUE AND JUNIORS WERE PROMOTED WITH ALL ATTENDANT CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AS HAS BEEN ORDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED 25TH JULY 2012 DATED 25.7.2012 IN W.A. NO.1823/2007 [S R].
NC: 2024:KHC:22510 WP No. 11232 of 2013
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who has had to fight litigation against the penalty imposed and restoration of pay, is now aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 10.10.2012 [ Annexure-G ] and the respondent has issued this Endorsement informing the petitioner that his representation dated 13.08.2012 is rejected for reasons that read as under:
"WHEREAS, you were not empanelled for promotion against the vacancy years 2000-01 and 2001-02 as you were graded as "Good" by the DPC, whereas the required bench mark for promotion to the rank of Commandant is Very Good. You were, however, empanelled for promotion to the rank of Commandant against the vacancy year 2002-03. Since you retired on superannuation on 30.09.2002, you could not be promoted in terms of instructions contained in para 6.4.4 of the DoP&Trg. OM No.22011/5/86-Estt(D) dated 10th April, 1989 which provides that the promotion will have only
NC: 2024:KHC:22510 WP No. 11232 of 2013
prospective effect even in cases where the vacancies relate to earlier year(s)."
petitioner had to prosecute as against the imposition of punishment and for restoration of pay are in W.P. No.17272/2001 [which is decided on 17.06.2006] and in W.P. No.10506/2007 [which is decided on 27.08.2007]. These writ petitions have culminated with the orders dated 25.07.2012 in intra-Court appeal in W.A. No.1823/2007 . However, except this reference to these proceedings, the other details will not be material for a decision on the present controversy which relates to the reason assigned by the third respondent to refuse the petitioner's request for promotion.
for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is denied the benefit of promotion only because of his grading as 'Good' in the relevant Annual Confidential
NC: 2024:KHC:22510 WP No. 11232 of 2013
Records [ACRs] for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02, and he proposes to rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Others1 , to contend that he petitioner could not be denied the benefit of promotion unless he was given reasonable notice of grading in ACRs so that he could have a reasonable opportunity to improve his performance.
1 [2008]8 SCC 725
NC: 2024:KHC:22510 WP No. 11232 of 2013
apply, it will be for ACRs. The learned counsel also submits that even otherwise the petitioner cannot rely upon this proposition as he is employed with CISF as an exception is carved out in the case of military and armed forces by the Apex Court in this very decision itself.
in the light of the material on record. If the petitioner contends that Annexures - J and K reflect the assessment in his ACR for the relevant year, the respondent contends that it is an assessment of DPC. This is a fact that will have to be assessed prima facie mostly, and in the absence of materials to the contrary, on perusal of these Annexures this Court cannot opine that the assessment as found in Annexures - J and K is the petitioner's assessment in the ACRs. This takes much of the wind out of the petitioner's say insofar as the present case. Further, irrespective of the position as of today, exception is
NC: 2024:KHC:22510 WP No. 11232 of 2013
carved out even as late as in the year 2008 for applying the proposition that an employee must be given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the grades in the case of those who are employed with forces such as CISF. As such, there is no reason for interference, and hence, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
NV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired CISF Deputy Commandent can claim promotion benefit despite 'Good' grading in ACRs citing Dev Dutt.
Whether the anomaly of CISF employment overrides the Apex Court's rule regarding notice of grading.
Whether the endorsement letter regarding rejection of promotion is justified under service rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and OthersDoubted¶36
[2008] 8 SCC 725 · Who else cites this
Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and OthersDoubted¶41
[2008] 8 SCC 725 · Who else cites this
M Mujibulla
Union of India
Director General CISF
Duty Inspector General (Post)
Secretary UPSC
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
