Promotion assessments must adhere to established procedures, and claims filed after significant delays may be barred by laches.

ORDER :

This Petition has been filed to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order issued by the petitioner in Na.Ka. No.115/36095/Pa.Pi. 5(1)/2014 dated 09.03.2015 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the C list of Head Constable fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1999-2000 based on the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Range Promotion Board and notionally promote the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police on par with his juniors and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner entered the service as Grade II Police Constable in Chennai City Armed Reserve on 27.02.1986. He was promoted as Lance Nayak on 18.05.1990. H was upgraded as Nayak on 21.08.1991. Later, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable notionally w.e.f. 24.09.1996. The petitioner was promoted as Special Sub-Inspector in the year 2001 and further promoted as regular Sub-Inspector of Police on 18.06.2015. The Petitioner has received more than 100 rewards in his exemplary career. During the year 2000, a range promotion board was conducted for the preparation of 'C' list of Head Constables, who are fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector. While calculating the marks for the past performance, the petitioner has not been awarded proper marks for his past performance as well as Annual Confidential Report. The petitioner was awarded 59.2 marks without taking into consideration the marks for his past performance and the rewards. The petitioner made a detailed representation mentioning all these details to the Commissioner of Police on 22.09.2014 and also gave relevant particulars regarding the inclusion of the names of individuals long after the selection was over for the year 1999-2000. Initially the petitioner's request was not considered, but subsequently after a lapse of 6 months, an order was passed.

3. The learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner based upon the affidavit, additional affidavit, additional reply affidavit and information obtained from RTI would submit that furing the year 2000, lot of malpractices took place while awarding marks for the past performance and in the interview. Thereby, the petitioner was not awarded proper marks for his past performance as well as ACRs. Again, during the year 2003, when the range promotion board was conducted, the petitioner was awarded 64.25 marks including 5 marks for the rewards, but as per the small book entry, the petitioner has secured more than 90 rewards and the petitioner is entitled to get 9 marks. Similarly in the year 2005, the respondents have replied to the petition under RTI Act that there was no Range Promotion Board conducted in the year 2005. Whereas, in the impugned order dated 09.03.2015, they have stated that the petitioner has not reached the cut off marks for the year 2005 Range Promotion Board, which clearly shows the malpractices committed by the respondents. The petitioner was not selected for obvious reasons.

4. The learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the rewards secured by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration, while awarding marks in the Range Promotion Board conducted for the year 2000 for the past performance. Had the Range Promotion Board followed the established procedure in the manner known to law, the petitioner could have got selected and his name could have been included in the C list of Head Constables, who are fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector, for the year 2000 and the representation made by him to the Commissioner of Police on 22.09.2014 was rejected.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, based upon the counter affidavit and three additional typed set of papers filed by the petitioner would contend that the original tabular column of marks awarded by the three officers viz., Commissioner of Police, Superintendent of Po