Eligibility for promotion is determined by the date of absorption, and prior service in State Government is not counted for MACP benefits.

ORDER

Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member

The applicant was a Constable in the Kerala Police who was promoted as Head Constable on 25.03.1996. While so, he was posted to Intelligence Bureau (IB) on deputation with effect from 21.04.2008 as an Intelligence Officer. On completion of 3 years of service on deputation, he became eligible for absorption in Intelligence Bureau. Accordingly, by Annexure A-1, he was requested to submit his willingness for being absorbed in the organisation. By Annexure A-2 dated 02.11.2013 he conveyed his willingness. Since it was not responded, the willingness was reiterated by communications dated 02.11.2013 and 18.04.2013. By Annexure A-3 dated 08.05.2013, the applicant was informed that he has been absorbed as Junior Intelligence Officer Grade-II. By Annexure-A4 dated 08.07.2013 he was further informed that he was absorbed with effect from 08.05.2013 and ranked below one Mahipal Singh.

2. According to the applicant, Mahipal Singh was promoted as JIO Grade-I in 2012-13. The applicant contends that he was considered for promotion only in the DPC held for 2014-15. Mahipal Singh joined IB on 28.10.2008, two months prior to the joining of the applicant. However, the applicant was absorbed much later and was promoted belatedly. He sought to anti-date his promotion, which was declined by Annexure-A5 informing that he became eligible to be considered for promotion as JIO-Grade-I by DPC 2014-15, which was held immediately after his absorption dated 08.05.2013. On the other hand, Mahipal was absorbed on 22.09.2011 and became eligible for promotion by DPC of 2012-13.

3. Seeking the relief the Original Application has been filed on a premise that he ought to have been considered in the DPC on 2013-14. The relief sought in the Original Application is to quash Annexure-A7 and A-11 and declare that delay in absorbing the applicant in Intelligence Bureau was illegal and to direct the respondent treat him as absorbed in IB with retrospective effect from 21.04.2011, the date of completion of 3 years of service in IB or atleast with effect from 02.11.2012, the date of Annexure-A2 request with all consequential benefits. He sought a further declaration that he ought to have been considered as JIO-Gr.I by including in the DPC held 2013-14 and to direct the respondent to consider him on notional promotion as JIO-Gr.-I with effect from date of promotion of candidates, who were considered in the DPC held for the year 2013 with all consequential benefits. Yet another relief sought was to get the financial upgradation under the MACP scheme reckoning the service rendered by him in Kerala Police.

4. A reply statement was filed, wherein it was stated that as per the policy prevailing during the relevant time, deputationists became eligible for absorption after completion of 3 years of service in IB. That did not imply that he was entitled for promotion. The consideration for absorption is a long-drawn process and involves numerous administrative formalities. Absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It was stated that as a part of absorption process willingness was taken from the deputationists and after obtaining NOC from the parent Departments, the matter was placed before the Screening Committee to judge the suitability for absorption in the analogous rank. In the case of the applicant, NOC was sought from the parent Department Kerala Police and NOC was received only in November 2011, by communication dated 17.11.2011. In the meanwhile, the guidelines of DoPT for deputation/extension had changed. The Screening Committee comprising an officer in the rank of Joint Director as Chairman and other members were constituted. The case of 13 applicants, including that of applicant, was considered and the Committee declared all the officials fit for absorption. The Committee's recommendation was placed before DIB, who approved the same on 21.09.2012. All the deputationists, including the applicant, were informed about the condi