Dismissed a writ petition challenging impugned orders regarding adverse remarks and subsequent non-promotion. The Court found no basis in the pleadings for allegations of mala-fide or procedural impropriety.
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.
W.P.(C) No.1281 of 2005
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1, 2 & 3.
The Writ Petition involves the following prayer:
“Under the circumstances narrated above it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the impugned orders of adverse remarks dated 29.12.2003 (Annexure10) and the subsequent order dated 22.11.2004 (Annexure-14) and issue a Writ Petition in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directions or order commanding the opposite parties;
And pass such other order(s), direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper for the bonafide interest of justice.”
While advancing his argument Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner initially challenged the impugned order on the premises that adverse entry has been made in the C.C.R of the petitioner and as the same has been communicated to the petitioner just before a day of the promotion taking place by the D.P.C, it becomes improper for relying such adverse entry by the D.P.C. in the matter of promotion involving the petitioner. In the course of argument Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner also attempted to challenge the impugned
2
orders on the ground of mala-fidity at the instance of some Officers. Referring to the pleadings in the Writ Petition Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to demonstrate justifying both the allegations from the pleadings made in the Writ Petition and thus prayed that Writ Petition should allowed on interference in the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 to 3 on the other hand, while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no such pleading available in the Writ Petition and further for the adverse entry in the C.C.R. of the previous year being relevant in the matter of consideration of the case for promotion of the candidates by the D.P.C., there is no illegality in taking into consideration of such entries in the C.C.R of the parties. It is, at this stage of the matter Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the application for review of the adverse entry in the C.C.R of the petitioner having been undertaken by the incompetent person, the review decision also becomes illegal. Looking to the averments made in paragraph no.25 onwards of the Writ Petition this Court finds, there is no foundation in making such allegation. On the other hand in the event the petitioner attributes the allegation of mala-fide on the Officers, then the said Officers should have been made as a party to the proceeding in the Writ Petition. In absence of which such plea remains unentertainable.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the pleadings made in the Writ
3
Petition, this Court nowhere finds any of the ground available in the Writ Petition. It is, on the other hand from the pleadings it becomes clear that the petitioner’s objection to the communication of the adverse entry though made subsequent to the promotion taken effect, has been rejected assigning reasons. It is, in the circumstance and for having no pleading in this Writ Petition involving the grounds raised at the time of hearing, this Court finds no scope for entertaining the same, for which the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
….…..…………………
(Biswanath Rath, J.)
Ayas
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition involving adverse remarks and promotion considerations deserves allowance.
Whether the adverse entry in the C.C.R. being communicated after promotion taken effect makes the reliance illegality.
Whether the petitioning officer becoming a necessary party for the plea of mala-fide allows the plea.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite party nos.1, 2 & 3
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
