IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of a change in promotion criteria and ruled that the petitioners' claims for retrospective promotion were barred by res judicata due to a prior judgment.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. L. N. Dihingia, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioners, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, have presented a challenge to the policy decision arrived at by the respondent authorities for considering the cases of the incumbents in the cadre of Naik for promotion to the cadre of Head Constable by reckoning their seniority in the Group Centre level and not in the Divisional level as was being considered prior to 1995. The petitioners have further prayed for assignment of their respective seniority in the cadre of Head Constable by reckoning the date of promotion of their juniors to the said cadre of Head Constable.

3. Mr. Dihingia, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners were eligible for being considered from promotion to the cadre of Head Constable in the year 1995. As per the policy thereto before, in vogue, the promotion of the incumbents in the cadre of Naik, were being so considered for promotion to the cadre of Head Constable by reckoning their seniority in the Divisional level. However, w.e.f. 04.09.1995, the mode of promotion to the cadre of Head Constable was changed and the said promotion was now required to be so effected against the vacancies available at the respective Group Centres.

4. Mr. Dihingia, learned counsel, has also submitted that in terms of the policy in vogue, prior to 04.09.1995, the vacancies available in the cadre of Head Constable at the Group Centre wherein they were so working, were so filled-up by inducting persons on promotion from other Group Centres and the vacancies, stood extinguished. Accordingly, when the petitioners had become eligible for being promoted to the cadre of Head Constable; there was no vacancy available for effecting for such consideration in their cases.

5. Mr. Dihingia, learned counsel, has further submitted that subsequently, in the year 2000, the petitioners were promoted to the cadre of Head Constable and such promotion was given effect from 08.06.1999 i.e. the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) for the said purpose had met and made recommendations in their favour.

6. Mr. Dihingia, learned counsel, has submitted that the petitioners being aggrieved; had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)57/2001, praying for grant of retrospective effect of their promotion so effected vide the order, dated 28.06.2000, and for making it effective with effect from the year 1995 and/or the date when their juniors were so promoted at other Group Centres within the same Division i.e. Shillong.

7. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners had also prayed for a direction for incorporation of their names in the gradation list as published in the year 2000, for the cadre of Head Constable. However, it is submitted by Mr. Dihingia, learned counsel, that this Court did not consider the grievance of the petitioners so raised in the said writ petition, praying for grant of retrospective effect to their promotion to the cadre of Head Constable. However, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to incorporate the names of the petitioners therein, at the appropriate position, in the gradation list of the incumbents in the cadre of Head Constable by reckoning their date of promotion to the said cadre.

8. Mr. Dihingia, learned counsel, has further submitted that with regard to the grievance raised by the petitioners about the change in the manner of promotion to the cadre of Head Constable after 1995; this Court had provided that the Director General of the Force may examine the representations as submitted by the petitioners in the matter and take necessary steps as may be deemed fit and proper.

9. Mr.