JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---Petitioner who was holding the rank of Chief Petty Officer (Signal) in Navy has filed this petition seeking writ of mandamus to promote him to the post of Master Chief Petty Officer II.

2.Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows :

The petitioner joined Indian Navy as Sailor (Signal Branch) on 13th September, 1974. After completion of training at Signal School in Cochin in September, 1975 he was promoted to the rank of Leading Signal Man on 5th November, 1982. On 15th January, 1985 he was further promoted to the rank of Petty Officer (Signal) and thereafter to the rank of Chief Petty Officer (Signal) from 1-10-1990. It appears that during his tenure as Chief Petty Officer the petitioner had incurred disqualification because of some negligence on his part on 12th March, 1993 when he did not notice and, therefore, did not report about the theft of a TV from the place of which he was in charge. Under the rules of Navy a minimum of continuous period of 4 years of Very Good Conduct is required for being considered for further promotions. It is one of the criteria for eligibility for promotion to the higher post. Having incurred warrant punishment on 12th March, 1993, he became ineligible for being considered for promotion for a period of four years ending 12th March, 1997. Despite the ineligibility incurred by him, petitioner's name was placed before the Promotion Board for being considered for promotion to the post of Master Chief Petty Officer II in September 1994, in September 1995 and in September 1996. According to the petitioner he was placed at the first position on the merit list for the selection to the said post in September 1994 and at second position in September 1995 and again at first position in September 1996 but was not recommended for promotion by the Promotion Board due to the ineligibility suffered as aforesaid. The petitioner thereafter filed writ petition in this Court bearing No. 2166 of 1996. That petition came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 23rd September, 1997 wherein after considering the fact that petitioner's ineligibility period had expired on 12th March, 1997 and had 4 years of very Good Conduct, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Master Chief Petty Officer II as early as possible. Pursuant to the said direction Special Promotion Board was appointed by the Chief of Naval Staff in January 1998. However the Board did not recommend the petitioner for promotion as he was not found fit for promotion since he lacked various attributes mentioned in para 14 of the Navy Order No. (Star) 40/94.

3.On behalf of the respondents an affidavit in reply dated 20th April, 1998 has been filed. Para 7 of the said affidavit mentions the reasons for not recommending the petitioner for promotion which are as follows :

"With reference to para 7 I say that, the break in VG conduct was not the only obstacle in the petitioner's way for his promotion to MCPO II. I say that in accordance with the judgment of this Court on 23 September, 97 a Special Promotion Board was appointed by the Chief of the Naval Staff in January 98. The Board observed that the professional knowledge and the performance of the petitioner was good however his integrity, moral fibre and ability to shoulder high responsibilities was doubtful. The Board was of the opinion that the petitioner was not fit for promotion to the rank of MCPO since he lacked various attributes mentioned at para 14 of Navy Order 40 (Star)/94. Therefore, the Board did not recommend the sailor for promotion."

4.Denying the allegations made and contentions raised in para 8 of the petition, it is further stated in para 8 of the reply affidavit of the respondents as follows :

"With reference to para 8(a) of the petition, I say that, professional record of the petitioner is good. However, as brought out earlier he did not possess the qualities required by a MCPO r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document