C r i GQ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO."72^-^-OF 2006 PETITIONER ^ •'^ -^ RESPONDENTS ../y .f.y ^e^" •^^ ..-:? •'K'&' "^: ^ ^' ^ ./ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^~t •^ ^^y^ -^w"..^' >-^>-"" vs Suresh Singh Kushwaha, son of Shri K.S. Kushwaha, aged about 47 years, Platoon Commander, Dog Squad, CTJW College, Kanker. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Inspector Seneral of Police, Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarters, Raipur. 3. The Director Seneral of Police, Arm Squad, Bhilai. 4. The Director, CTWJ College, Kanker. .d_ *s"- i,.A y /'/ I Lh\l_^ ^ ^/RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/^ OF THE ;\ o' <¥' CONSTITUTION OF INblA. /'^.:- H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SJNGLE BENCH.: HON'BLE MR. SATiSH K. AGNiHOTRS. J. •a t Rti Pstitioner RessonQents versus Suresh Sin.ah Kushwaha State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. B.P.Sharma,couns9!forthepetitioner. Mr. Sushii Dubey, Governrnent Advocate for ths State/respondents. (Passed on 4"' Day of January, 2007) By this wrft petition, the petitioner sseks foliowlng rsiiel against ths respondents :- A.rf "E. A writ and/ or an order in ths naturs of wrii &f mandamus do commanding and directing the ^>y^^^~[."l^}.-ni^i^t ^l^T'^^/*F, <*S; ^^'i;^.^VWF?4'^ .^-*<'k V<^ *p^.?;tt.^^^ S*'^-'"^ .^/'^^;"l''i'nl ^?*11 < ^SpOHQSni &'£3iS ^UIHGHTi^S ?0 pFOQUCS C'STOFS IH^S Hon'bis Court ali tha documents relating to the petitioner for its kind psrusai. b. A v»'ritand/ or an order in the natyrs of writ of manc'amus do issue cailing upon the respondent State authorit'es to explain thoir n.^y^/43 if^A ly^ y.>ai'i' ""r.'^l'*^'*-,!'^;"! ^^G ?*• ^l^f?"'!?^ &?' ^;'^.*^ '^4 ~i*lK^ 't/^l i^Uirfi. iU 5 aviL ^?iVjl i-'u'tii i^ -U% ^•SUU^'^Ws Ssi!-»s Sif. L. ^J^^A ^d'fi^^.-ff\ ^^3?/*^?"^;p^^i?a1!.^ ,tftlA^1' 'rtt?1 ?*tS^^Cb.?^^!0 ^.y^.^v. [i'Liy i.;Hi^ p^yi ;iyui ^ ^a.i iys ^jei^.iw; ia> e^i'!^ I,-- thersaftsr, appropriate direction be issued to the rsspondent State authorities. A writ and' or an order in the nature of v/rit of mandamus do commanding and directing ths •••espondent State authorities to consider ths cass of t'ns petitioner according to the weli estabiished norms of the Sen.'ice Jurisprudencs and if deem fit di.rect the respondent State authoritles 'io promote the petitloner with ail consequsntial benefits from the dats.when ths petitioner has become entitisd for in ths facts and ctrcumstances of the case. r'-~ci \^^sf; ths procesdlngs. e. Any other relief in the discrstiof Hon'bis Court." n of this 'r 't-- 2. The petitioner is working as Piatoon Cornmander, Dog Squad in CTJW Coiiegs, Kanker. The petitioner, aftsr having completsd 10 years, has no{ bssn promoted to the post of Company Commander. The petitioner rnads a representation to the concerned authoritles stating that the other Piatoon Commanders, v/ho have coinpleted mor®than 6 years of sen/ices, have been promoted to the post of Company Coriimandsr. The petitioner clairns promotson on the basis of promotioRS of othsr Piatoon Commanders to th®post of Comoany Commander. 3. On qusry as to whether promotion is govsrnec' by sorne ruis&, reguiations, circulars or executlve jnstructions, learned counsei sppearing for the petitionsr was not !n a position to poinf out any document, which providss for promotion of the Piatoon Commancier to •5W""S*gBiSIS!» -^^^^S^S^S;^^^ the post of Company Commander on completion of 6 years. The sole contention of learned counse) appearing for the petitioner was that the other Platoon Commanders, not in Dog Squad, have been promoted to the post of Company Commander after working for more than S years. 4. Ths petition lacks reievant materials. The petition is cryptic and does not disciose any cause of action or s semfclancs of right accrued in favour of the petitioner. .-\ 5. Lsarned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to a lefr;sr dated 13-8-2004 (Annexure P-1), whereby all the Commandants have been asked to submit details of Platoon Commanders, v/ho have cornpietea" S years of seh'ice. Ths said iettsr doss not indicste as to v.'hether a Piatoon Comrnander has to be promoted necsssariiy s.Ser completion of 6 years. !t is further brought to the notice that the Additional Director Generai of Police (Speciai Ar.Tisd Forcss/Training/Communication), by ietter dated 9-1-2006 (Annexurs P-7), dirscted the Director, CTJW Coiieae, Kanker to snabie the petitioner to appe-ar before hlm in respect of the pstitionsr's reprsssntatic.n dated 5-1-2006. The Director, CTJA' Cojisge, Kanksr, in his Istter datsd 9-11-2006 (Annexur® P-8), addresssd to the inspector Gensrai of Pojice (Speciai Armed Forces), Bhiiai, informed that no post of Company Commander (Dog Squad) is vacsnt for promotlng the petltloner So the sald post. However, it was obseni'ed that ths petitionsr may be considersd for promotion to ths post of Company CommandsrfG.D.). \ ^?) L>/ 6. ln view of the foregoing, the inspector General of Police (Special Armed Foroes), Bhilai is directed to conslder the recommendation dated 9-11-2008 (Annexure P-8) of the Director, CTJW College, Kanker, in accordance with law, within a period of four wseks from the rsceipt of a' copy of this order. 7. The petition is accordingiy di statsd direction. No ordsr as to costs. ect OT wstn tne aisove- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge QOD3i