1.This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by a Deputy Commandant (Additional Superintendent of Police), II Battalion, SAF is directed against rejection of the grant for selection grade as on 1.1.2010 by the DPC convened on 29.11.2013 communicated to the petitioner, on 15.9.2016 under the Right to Information Act.

2. Facts shorn of necessary details are to the effect that for grant of selection grade on the post of Additional Superintendent of Police,the criteria is fixed in the circular issued by the Home Department, State of Madhya Pradesh No.1(B)124/13/B-4/Do for the DPC proceedings and the bench mark is ‘13’. The relevant part in paragraph 6 (1) and (3) are reproduced below:-

^^¼6½ izoj Js.kh osrueku Lohd`r fd, tkus gsrq Nkuchu lfefr }kjk fuEukuqlkj ekinaM viuk, x, %&

1- ik¡p o"kksZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa esa dksbZ xaHkhj izfrdwy Vhdk vafdr u gks rFkk fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa ^^?k** Js.kh ugha gksuk pkfg,A

2- -------------

3- fiNys ik¡p o"kksZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa ds ewY;kadu ds fy, Js.kh ^^d** dks 04 ^^d** dks 03 vad] **[k** dks 02] ^^x** dks 01 rFkk ^^?k** dks 0 vad fu/kkZfjr fd, x, gSA izoj Js.kh osrueku ds fy, mi;qDrrk gsrq 05 o"kksZ dks lexz ewY;kadu de ls de 13 vad gksuk pkfg,A**

3. The preceding five years ACRs are of the years 2005 to 2009.

As per chart prepared and annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure R-2 by the respondents, the petitioner’s name appears at Sl.No.187. He is shown to have been awarded following marks during the period at issue as follows:-     

As a result, since the petitioner fell short of ‘1’ mark from the bench mark ‘13’, the selection grade has been denied.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007, the petitioner was awarded ‘Good’ - ‘B’ by the immediate superior officer, the Superintendent of Police, Datia. The DIG, Chambal Range, Gwalior as reviewing officer did not agree with the remark of the Superintendent of Police and upgraded the same as “Very Good” awarding him Grade “A”. The grading of the DIG was approved by the IG, SAF (with additional charge of Chambal Range). However, to his utter surprise, the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal down-graded the petitioner as “B” with remark that he has agreed with the remark of the Superintendent of Police.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that but for the adverse remark of the Director General of Police, M.P., Bhopal down-grading the petitioner from “A” to ‘B’, the petitioner could have been granted the selection grade as upon calculation, the aggregate shall come to ‘13’ at par with the bench mark.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that downgrading of the remark by the Director General of Police, M.P., Bhopal, as such, tantanmounts to adverse remark/weak remark resulting into grave prejudice to the petitioner’s right to acquire selection grade, on the post of Additional Superintendent of Police. Under the circumstances,the Director General of Police, M.P., Bhopal was under statutory obligation to communicate the petitioner aforesaid remark of down-grading before the same could have been acted upon for any purpose including for denial of the selection grade to the petitioner by the DPC. That has not been done. Consequently, the petitioner has been subjected to unlawful denial of selection grade violating his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others [(2008)8 SCC 725], to bolster his submission.

7. Per contra, Smt. Ami Prabal, Deputy A