IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 15329/2008 Decided on:23.6.2011 _____________________________________________ Gopal Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Surender Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that respondents have illegally ignored him for Intermediate School Course to enable him to be promoted to the post of A.S.I. 2. Mr. Surender Thakur has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents to ignore the petitioner for Intermediate School Course by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which met on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 30.5.2007 is illegal, arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that in fact, the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, and two Superintendents of Police were the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee. According to him, two F.I.Rs. had been registered against the petitioner bearing No. 117/2005 dated 12.4.2005 and 310/2005 dated 8.12.2005. These F.I.Rs have been registered against the petitioner under sections 420,465,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Sadar, Shimla. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings meticulously. 5. F.I.R. No. 117/2005 has been registered against the petitioner on 12.4.2005 at Police Station, Sadar, Shimla. The challan has also been put up in this case and the petitioner was issued summons as per the averments contained in the reply, but the petitioner has not appeared before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (4), Shimla and the next date of 3 hearing was fixed for 21.8.2007. In F.I.R. No. 310/2005, the investigation was complete and the challan was being prepared. The Court is of the considered view that since 2 F.I.Rs have been registered against the petitioner and in one of the cases, it is alleged that petitioner had forged the signatures of D.D.O. for raising loan from U.C.O. bank, Shimla while posted in Shimla District. 6. The Intermediate School Course is a promotional course and the Head Constables, whose integrity and character is above board, should be considered for the course in question. This aspect has been taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee while over looking the petitioner for recommending his case for Intermediate School Course in its meeting held on 30.5.2007. 7. Petitioner had earlier filed original application bearing No. 1338/2007 for the redressal of his grievance. The same was directed to the treated as representation to the Director General of Police. The Director General of Police has rejected the same by self-contained and speaking order on 21.6.2007. 4 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, since two F.I.Rs. have already been registered against the petitioner, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 23.6.2011 *awasthi*