IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2712 of 2008. Decided on: 9.4.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Parkash Chand … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate vice Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. _______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 26.7.1960. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 1.4.1967 and to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on 4.6.1985. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector on 1.12.1989. He was conveyed adverse remarks entered in his Annual Confidential Reports for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992. He made representation against the same. It was accepted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Mandi on 27.2.1993. The Superintendent of Police again recorded adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the petitioner for the period 1.4.1992 to 24.8.1992. He made representation against the same. It was accepted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Mandi on 31.5.1994. The petitioner was conveyed by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Superintendent of Police, Mandi on 17.1.1994 that he could not be confirmed due to adverse remarks. He was confirmed with effect from 5.7.1994 vide order dated 22.9.1994. He made representation against the same and thereafter, he was confirmed with effect from 4.1.1994. Mr. Janesh Mahajan has strenuously argued that the petitioner’s case was required to be considered for promotion by the Review Departmental Promotion Committee after the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports were expunged. He further argued that the action of the respondents for not considering his case for further promotion by convening the Review Departmental Promotion Committee was actuated with legal mala fides. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the case of the petitioner could not be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee which was convened on 22.6.1994 due to his non-confirmation. He then argued that in the Departmental Promotion Committee convened on 27.7.1995, the petitioner was not found suitable. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. It is borne out from the records that the adverse remarks recorded in the confidential reports of the petitioner for the year 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 were expunged on 27.2.1993. The adverse remarks recorded in his confidential reports for the period 1.4.1992 to 24.8.1992 were also expunged on 31.5.1994. He was initially confirmed with effect from 5.7.1994. However, vide order 3 dated 6.2.1995, he was confirmed with effect from 4.1.1994. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the respondents to convene the Review Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector. It is stated in the reply that the Departmental Promotion Committee had initially considered the case of only those Sub Inspectors who were confirmed with effect from 4.1.1994 or prior to that date. Since the petitioner had been confirmed vide Annexure A-7 with effect from 4.1.1994, his case is liable to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector by holding the Review Departmental Promotion Committee. His case was also considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee which met on 27.7.1995. He could not be recommended for promotion since he had secured 17.5 marks whereas the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the cases of those Sub Inspectors who were awarded 21 marks or more marks. However, fact of the matter is that he was due for promotion in the year 1994 and after he being confirmed with effect from 4.1.1994 was to be considered by holding the Review Departmental Promotion Committee. The petitioner had fundamental right to be considered for promotion from the due date. He was not considered by the Review Departmental Promotion Committee, as noticed above, on 22.6.1994 for the simple reason that he was not confirmed as on 4.1.1994. He was not confirmed from the due date only on the basis of adverse remarks recorded in his confidential reports. These remarks were expunged and thereafter, he was confirmed with effect from 4.1.1994. 4 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to convene the Review Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Inspector from the year 1994. The Review Departmental Promotion Committee shall be convened within a period of eight weeks from today. In the eventuality of the petitioner being found suitable for promotion to the post of Inspector, he will be entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 9, 2009. (cr)