.

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are represented by Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India. The Union Public Service Commission and the selection committee (respondent Nos.5 and 7) are represented by the learned counsel Ms. R. Borah. The learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, Mr. D. Nath appears for respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 8. The learned Sr. counsel Mr. M.K. Choudhury together with Mr. T.N. Srinivasan, advocate, appears for the private respondent Nos. 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23 and 24. The private respondent Nos. 19, 22, 25 and 26 are represented by the learned advocate Mr. R. Singha and the respondent No.13 is represented by Mr. B.N. Gogoi, the learned counsel.

2. The deprivation of promotion of the petitioner to the IPS cadre for the 2009A and 2010 batch, is the subject matter of the present litigation. The petitioner was within the zone of consideration during those occasions but as because, she was inflicted the penalty of censure, in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding, the UPSC found her unfit for promotion, at both juncture.

3. But the penalty of censure, when challenged through the WP(C) No.4521/2010, was quashed by the High Court on 27.04.2012 (Annexure-7). Armed with the Court’s verdict, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) for retrospective promotion from the date, when her batch mates and juniors were promoted. However the learned Tribunal rejected the O.A. No.171/2013. Accordingly the aggrieved applicant has approached the High Court to challenge the Tribunal’s order dated 20.01.2015 (page-176).

4.1 Assailing the legality of the impugned decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner contends that promotion to the Assam segment of the IPS, Assam-Meghalaya Joint Cadre, in 2009A and 2010 batch for the writ petitioner, was not considered on merit only because of the censure penalty dated 16.09.2009 (subsequently quashed by the High Court on 27.04.2012). Therefore when the penalty was obliterated, corrective measures should have been ordered by the Tribunal, to do complete justice to the deprived officer.

4.2 Mr. U.K. Nair as the learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner was granted the promotion in the year 2011, but since she was entitled to be considered for the batch of 2009A and 2010 when her contemporaries and juniors were selected, necessary corrective consideration through review selection committee ought to be made, to ante-date her seniority in the IPS.

4.3 The petitioner’s lawyer further submits that the censure penalty, quashed by the writ court on 27.04.2012 (Annexure-7) in the WP(C) No.4521/2010, has attained finality without challenge to the Court’s verdict by anyone and therefore the counsel argues that the benefit of the obliteration of the censure order, must reach the deprived officer.

4.4 Since the writ petitioner is requesting for a consideration of her case on merit as the same was not done by the concerned DPCs in the years 2009A and 2010 on account of the suffering of the penalty by the officer, Mr. Nair submits that right to be considered for promotion being a Fundamental Right, the same must not be denied to the petitioner.

5.1 On the other hand, Ms. R. Bora, the learned counsel for the UPSC refers to the counter affidavit filed by the Under Secretary of the Commission on 26.02.2016 to project that the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Promotion Regulations”) govern the field. They require the UPSC to make selection of State police service officers for promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS). It is the responsibility of the State Government to forward proposals for consideration by the UPSC and under Regulation 5(1) of the Promotion Regulations, the number of vacancies against which selection is made for a particular selection year, is determ