Uncommunicated 'average' ACRs cannot adversely impact promotion under merit-cum-seniority; must be communicated for representation, else ignored as violative of Article 14 and natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing an office order dated 20.12.2014 (Annexure P-13), passed by respondent No.2, whereby his representation to consider him for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police w.e.f. 31.10.2014 has been rejected.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector with respondent No.2 in the year 2008 and had joined his duties on 01.01.2009.

3. The petitioner being eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter to be referred as “DPC”), convened on 22, 27 & 28.10.2014.

4. As per the proceedings of the DPC, the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014 were considered. The DPC had awarded 2.5 marks for every completed year of service and decided to award ½ marks for the quarter of a year to all candidates, whose length of service involved such a period. Since the promotions are to be made on the principle of merit-cum- seniority, the DPC had decided to reduce one mark of average ACR. The name of the petitioner was also considered and he found place at Sr. No.69 in the merit list prepared, but since there were only 55 vacancies available of the Inspectors of Police, the DPC recommended 55 Sub Inspectors of Police for promotion in order of merit.

5. The petitioner was not offered the appointment since he was at serial number 69 in the merit list prepared by the DPC. Feeling aggrieved by his non appointment to the post of Inspector of Police, he submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 19.11.2014 (Annexure P-12), stating therein that he was legitimately expecting his promotion, being fully eligible for promotion inasmuch as per the knowledge of the petitioner, there was no complaint against him and further he being senior ought to have been promoted to the post of Inspector of Police. It was specifically pleaded in the representation that the persons junior to him were promoted to the post of Inspector of Police. However, the said representation made by the petitioner was rejected vide office order dated 20.12.2014, stating therein that as per the provisions of Police Rule 13.1 read with Police Rule 13.14(2), the promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police is to be made on the principle of merit-cum-seniority and not merely on the basis of merit obtained in the selection to the rank of Sub Inspector. The DPC on the assessment of the service record of the Sub Inspectors of Police, who were in the zone of consideration, brought their names on promotion list ‘F’ in order of merit. Though the name of the petitioner was considered in the DPC convened on 22, 27 & 28.10.2014 for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police, but he being low in merit, his junior Sub Inspectors, who were higher in order of merit in promotion list ‘F’, have been recommended for promotion as Inspectors of Police as per number of vacancies in the rank of Inspector of Police. It has further been averred that Rule 13.17 of the Punjab Police Rule, applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, clearly provides that for making the promotion to the rank of Inspector from the rank of Sub Inspector, a report shall be prepared on the basis of the ACRs of each official and the same shall be of three kin