Back
2014 Supreme(J&K) 204
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
M.M. Kumar,Dhiraj Singh Thakur, JJ.
Kasturi Lal Bhagat -Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. -Resopndent
SWP No. 733-2008, CMA Nos. 494-2014 & 3597-2011
Decided On : 08-05-2014
D.C. Raina, Anil Verma, Gagan Basotra, J.A. Hamal, Basit M. Keng.
The expunction and upgradation of adverse remarks in APRs could create a right for the employee and may warrant a consideration for promotion with retrospective effect.
Headnote:
Review DPC - Indian Police Service - Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, Regulation 3, Regulation 5, Regulation 6, Regulation 7(3), Regulation 9 - The court discussed the controversy surrounding the constitution of Review DPC for the petitioner's selection and induction in IPS, highlighting the legal provisions and their interpretations. The court emphasized the impact of expunction and upgradation of APRs on the selection process, the consideration for promotion, and the possibility of ordering a Review DPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for constitution of Review DPC for his selection and induction in IPS with effect from 1998 and allotting 1994 as the order of allotment. The petitioner's service record was excellent, but his name did not figure in the list of officers inducted into IPS. His APRs were downgraded without reason, but were later upgraded. The petitioner was appointed IPS in 2002 and assigned 1997 as the year of allotment, which he contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's upgraded APRs should have entitled him to a right of consideration for induction into IPS based on those upgraded APRs. The court also held that expunction and upgradation of adverse remarks in APRs could create a right for the employee and may warrant a consideration for promotion with retrospective effect.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's improved APRs would require re-opening of the selection process for induction into IPS. Another issue was whether a Review DPC could be ordered to be constituted after the entire selection process was finalized.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that expunction and upgradation of adverse remarks in APRs could create a right for the employee and may warrant a consideration for promotion with retrospective effect. The court also found that there was no specific prohibition for ordering a Review DPC when there was material on record to order its convening.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed the respondents to constitute a Review DPC to review the petitioner's case based on his upgraded APRs and make recommendations accordingly. If the petitioner makes up the merit, he should be given the benefit of induction with effect from 1998.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 10th August, 2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the original application filed by the petitioner, seeking relief of constitution of Review DPC for his selection and induction in IPS with effect from 1998 and consequently allotting 1994 as the order of allotment, has been rejected.
2. With a view to understand the controversy in correct perspective, it is necessary to give brief background of the material facts as emerge from the records.
The petitioner was selected as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 21st of February, 1984 under the reserved category of Schedule Caste and subsequently appointed as Superintendent of Police in the year 1994 in his own pay and grade. It is stated that even when his service record was excellent, his name did not figure in the list of 20 officers inducted into IPS vide notification dated 20th March, 2000. It was urged that the APRs of the petitioner for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 which were rated `Very Good' and `excellent' by the initiating/ reviewing authorities were downgraded to `Good' and `Average' by the Accepting Authority without assigning any reason for the same.
Representations filed against the down grading of APRs were favorably considered and upon reconsideration of the entire matter, the APRs of the petitioner were up-graded by virtue of following orders issued by the Government vide Government order Nos.:
(a) Home 291 (P) of 2002 dated 11.06.2002 for the year 1997-98.
(b) Home-292 (P) of 2002 dated 11.06.2002 for the year 1998-99; and
(c) Home-230 (P) of 2002 dated 22.04.2002 for the year 1999-2000.
The up-gradation of the APRs of the petitioner were from `Good' and `Average' to `Very Good' and `Excellent' respectively.
It is stated that, in the meantime, by virtue of notification dated 29.08.2002, the petitioner was appointed IPS and was allocated the Jammu & Kashmir Cadre in terms of Rule 5(i) of the IPS Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954.
It is further stated that by virtue of order dated 6th February, 2003, the petitioner was assigned 1997 as the year of allotment as against 1994, and being aggrieved thereupon, a detailed representation was made to the respondents on 25.07.2003 which was never considered.
Being aggrieved of the non-consideration and failure of the respondents, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking the following relief:
"Treat the applicant having been selected and formally inducted in the list of 1998 of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers and consequently to allot as 1994 as year of allotment.
(i) By directing the respondents to review the minutes/ proceedings of the select list for the year 1998 of Indian Police Service (IPS).
(ii) By directing the respondents to include the name of the applicant in the Notification dated 9-3-2001 as well as Notification No. 1-15011/13/2001-IPS dated 30-1-2003.
(iii) By directing the respondents to place the applicant at appropriate place in the aforementioned list.
By directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant purely on the basis of seniority list of Dy. S.Ps and APR's of the applicant as provided under rules."
The Central Administrative Tribunal by virtue of the order impugned dismissed the original application of the petitioner, inter alia, by holding as under:
"6. We have heard Shri D.C. Raina ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Namit Kumar and Shri B.S. Salathia, ld. Counsels for respondents and have carefully examined the pleadings and documents on record.
7. The main issue which needs our consideration is whether any improvement made in the ACRS of an officer at a later point of time would require re-opening of the selection process for induction into an All India Service, like IPS which was done on the basis of the reports as were available at the time when Selection Committee meeting was held. For proper adjudication of th
