Promotion cannot be denied solely based on the number of past punishments without considering their nature and timing, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.

Prayers:

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (for short ‘Dy.S.P.’) as similarly situated persons and even below in rank to the petitioner have already been granted promotion to the said post but the petitioner though fulfills the requisite qualification and being eligible in all respects has been denied the said benefits.

Further prayer has been made for quashing part of the Order dated 11.12.2023, passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission presided by its Chairman (respondent No. 5), whereby the petitioner has been deprived from promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. on the ground that in view of Order No. 99 of the Jharkhand Police Order, the number of Major and Minor Punishment is more than the number of Awards achieved by the petitioner.

Factual Matrix:

2. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police and he joined the said post on 05.09.1994 in the State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand and since then, he was discharging his duties to the full satisfaction of the Higher Authorities. Thereafter, on completion of more than 21 years of services as Sub-Inspector of Police, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Inspector in the month of April-May, 2015 and since then he is working on the said post and no complaint whatsoever was alleged against the petitioner. It is the case of petitioner that considering the eligibility criteria for the post of Dy.S.P., the competent authority has considered the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the said post and accordingly, his name appeared at Sl. No. 63 in the Seniority-cum-Merit list prepared under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 4, as contained in memo no. 1426 dated 01.12.2023. It is the specific case of petitioner that though his name appeared in the Seniority-cum-Merit list but surprisingly, in the final list as contained in memo No. 6276 dated 28.12.2023 the name of petitioner did not appear inspite of the fact that at the time of consideration, no departmental proceeding was pending against him. It is the further case of petitioner that similarly situated and even persons below in rank to the petitioner have already been granted promotion to the said post but the petitioner though fulfills the requisite qualification and being eligible in all respects has been denied the said benefits.

3. Finding no other way, petitioner preferred representation before the Principal Secretary, Home and Disaster Management through the Director General of Police, Jharkhand as well as to the Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi requesting therein to consider his case for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. since petitioner possessed all the requisite qualifications and has completed required length of service for promotion to the said post. But the respondents have not taken any decision as yet and as such, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

Submissions of Petitioner:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner has not been awarded any major punishment after 2013 and therefore, the punishment which has been awarded in the year 2013 has no effect on the date of the Board Meeting held on 11.12.2023. Learned counsel submits that as per Rule-726(iii) of the Police Manual, the major penalty which has been awarded before 3 years back has no effects on the promotion specifically when the Promotion Committee was considering the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Police Inspector to the post of Dy.S.P. on 11.12.2023. Learned counsel further argues that from perusal of Order No. 99 read with Order No. 838 nowhere it transpires that any major punishment has been awarded to the petitioner in last 10 years.

Learned counsel further argues that in a similar situation before the Police Depart