IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14633 of 2009 1. RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O TRIVENI SINGH R/O ASHIANA NAGAR, P.S. RAJEEV NAGAR, DISTT. PATNA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2. THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 3. THE SECRETARY UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI 4. THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, 13 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, PATNA 6. THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL, PERSONNEL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 7. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, PERSONNEL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 8. THE SECRETARY DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI For the Petitioner M/s Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate For the Union of India :Mr. Dwivedy Surendra, Advocate For the U.P.S.C. :Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Jha, Advocate 03/ 23.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 2. Counsel for the Union of India has filed counter affidavit as also has produced the confidential character roll of the petitioner along with his service record in a sealed cover, which was perused by this Court. 3. Petitioner, who is Deputy Commandant in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the CISF), is aggrieved by the fax message of the CISF dated 31.3.2009 issued under the signature of Assistant Inspector General of the CISF, as contained in Annexure-5, whereunder his juniors have been promoted as Commandant in the CISF. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while 2 promoting the juniors, his confidential character roll as also service record was not appraised by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the manner in which it was required to have been appraised as while appraising the same, the A.C.R. for the previous three years from the date of consideration should have been seen by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but in the case of petitioner, A.C.R. for the period beyond three years i.e. five years preceding the date of consideration was appraised and as the petitioner has not secured “Very Good” in those years, although nothing adverse was ever communicated to him, he was not found fit for promotion. In this connection, it is submitted, with reference to paragraph 26 of the writ application, that while considering the case of M/s Pradeep Kumar Bharti and Amit Saran, who were found fit for promotion, A.C.R. and service record preceding three years from the date of consideration was only considered and adverse remarks recorded during that period was also ignored. Such averment is even admitted in reply to paragraph 26 of the writ application, vide paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit. In this connection, counsel for the petitioner has specifically pointed out that petitioner was promoted as Deputy Commandant with effect from 9.12.2002 and until he was considered for promotion as Commandant he was never communicated even one adverse remarks or that he has not been assessed as “Very Good”. Had he been informed that he has not been assessed as “Very Good”, he could have invited the attention of the reviewing authority to the testimonials granted and available in the service record and requested the authority 3 to upgrade the assessment as “Very Good” on the basis of the material available in his service record. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and having perused the writ application, A.C.R. and the service record of the petitioner as also having perused the counter affidavit and its reply, I am of the view that petitioner be made available the copy of his A.C.R. recorded during the period between 9.12.2002 till 12.3.2009 in which he has not been assessed “Very Good” so that he may represent before the competent authority on the basis of the certificates obtained during that period and request the authority to upgrade the assessment from average/ good to “Very Good”. In the representation, petitioner is also at liberty to invite the attention of the competent authority to the case of M/s Pradeep Kumar Bharti and Amit Saran that while considering their case for promotion, service record was looked into only for three previous years, but in the case of petitioner the authorities looked into the remarks of more than three years and in the case of Sri Pradeep Kumar Bharti, his adverse remarks for 2006-07 was also ignored, although in the case of petitioner, there was no such adverse remarks, as is evident from his A.C.R. The representation of the petitioner highlighting the aforesaid aspects of the matter be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of its receipt in the light of my observation above. The remarks other than “Very Good” be communicated to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a 4 copy of this order before the Inspector General, Respondent no.5. 6. The confidential character roll and the service record be again sealed and returned to the counsel for the Union of India. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)