HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 680 of 2004 Reserved on: 16.7.2008. Decided on: 18.7.2008. Dinesh Kumar ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.R.D. Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, dated 19.8.2004, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, joined the Police Department as Constable on 1.4.1965. He did his Matriculation subsequently in 1972. He was promoted as Head Constable in due course of time, then as Assistant Sub Inspector and then he was promoted as Sub Inspector initially on 12.7.1993 and subsequently his ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. date was preponed to 15.12.1992. A seniority list of Sub Inspectors was drawn and the petitioner alleged that he was placed senior to all the private respondents No.3 to 14. The petitioner figured at Sl.No.41, whereas respondents were placed below him It was further alleged by the petitioner that the respondents, though junior to him in seniority, were promoted as Inspectors in the years 1996 and 1997. He also made representation praying that he be granted promotion as Inspector retrospectively w.e.f. October, 1996. In the reply filed by the respondent-State before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, it was pleaded that promotion in the Police Department are being made as per the provisions laid down in PPR (Punjab Police Rules) 13.1, which provides that the selection shall be made tempered by seniority. Efficiency and honesty shall be main factors, besides others, governing the selection. It was pleaded that the case of the petitioner was duly considered in the DPC in the years 1996 and 1997, but his name was not recommended due to his low position in merit and other persons, who got better merit than the petitioner, were promoted. The name of the petitioner was again considered by the DPC in the year 1998 and he was promoted w.e.f. 28.4.1999 in accordance with the merit position reckoned by the DPC. It was pleaded that the representation of the petitioner was considered but was rejected. The petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Administrative Tribunals Act which was rejected by the learned Tribunal vide its impugned order. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that the petitioner was senior to private respondents. He was more meritorious and he was better qualified than the private respondents and, therefore, he should have been promoted in the year 1996-97 and as such he was entitled to be promoted w.e.f. October, 1996. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our attention has been drawn by the learned Deputy Advocate General to the reply filed by the respondent-State i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 in which they have clearly pleaded the criteria fixed by the DPC. It shows that the selection should be made on merit-cum-seniority and before a person is eligible to be promoted, he should have been Sub Inspector for at least 3 years. His ACRs for five years are to be considered and the merit is prepared keeping in view the Annual Confidential Reports, commendation certificates, seniority, punishment etc. and the marks are given under distinct heads for ACRs, commendation certificates etc. It was pleaded that due weightage has been given to all the factors and the DPC had considered the case of the petitioner and he was found lower in rank in the merit list for the year 1996 as well as for 1997 and accordingly was not promoted in these years. The contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered in isolation that the petitioner was better educated than the other private respondents since the marks have been provided differently under each category and it is the merit list which is prepared by the DPC which has to be finally considered. This Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot look into the question as to whether the petitioner was better qualified and was entitled to be promoted in preference to other candidates and the merit is prepared keeping in view all the factors and not only educational qualification, as pleaded before us. The reply filed by the respondents was very clear that the petitioner was lower in rank in the merit list and keeping in view the vacancies in those years, he was not entitled to be promoted and was not promoted in fact. The petitioner has not alleged any specific bias or malafide on the part of any Officer of the respondents including the members of the DPC and those members were also not impleaded as party since there were no specific allegations of bias or malafide against them. This Court cannot look into the record and come to its own conclusion in regard to merit list prepared by the DPC. Neither there was any specific challenge nor there is any proof that the DPC had not acted in a fair manner, which had considered the case of the petitioner, who had been promoted now in the year 1998. In the order passed by the learned Tribunal, every factor has been considered and the reply filed by the respondents clearly shows the criteria how the merit list is prepared, which shows that all the factors including ACRs, conditions of service etc. are considered while preparing the merit list. In view of above discussion and from a perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity so as to hold that the said order calls for an interference by this Court and as such there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. July 18, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.