1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.519/2008 Chandan Dan v. Director General of Police & Ors. Date of Order :: 5th May, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. M.R.Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, for the respondents. .... The petitioner, a member of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service, is eligible to be considered for recruitment by way of promotion to the Rajasthan Police Service created under the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1954”). In pursuant to the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee certain persons including the persons junior than the petitioner have been promoted to Rajasthan Police Service against the vacancies of the year 2007-08. The Departmental Promotion Committee constituted under the Rules of 1954 that met on 18.3.2008 denied promotion to the petitioner on the count that he suffered with a minor punishment of censure in the year 2007. By this petition for writ challenge is given to the denial of promotion aforesaid. This Court in Satyamani Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCivil Writ Petition No.2878/2003, decided on 11.8.2006, while considering the issue involved in this petition for writ, held as follows:- 2 “In view of the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1954 and also in view of the law laid down by this Court in Het Ram Dudi's case (supra) while examining suitability of an incumbent various factors are required to be taken into consideration and imposition of a minor penalty cannot be a sole criteria for denying promotion to a person. The procedure for selection under Rule 28 in quite unambiguous terms states that while preparing a list under the criteria of seniority- cum-merit remarks are required to be given for not recommending a person for promotion being unsuitable. No such remarks are available in the record of entire selection proceedings including the minutes of Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental Promotion Committee was required to see the entire service record including the annual confidential reports/annual performance appraisal reports, awards/commendation certificates, entries relating to punishments or pending departmental enquiries etc. and then by analysis of the same an objective remark in relation to suitability was required to be made. The Departmental Promotion Committee should have recorded that how the misconduct for that the petitioner was penalised by a minor penalty effected his efficiency to the extent that he is not suitable to be promoted to Rajasthan Police Service. While doing so the 3 committee must keep in mind that under the criteria of seniority- cum-merit it is the seniority that will prevail as the term “merit” under the criteria concerned means the minimum merit necessary for efficiency of administration. From perusal of the record it appears that no such exercise was done while rejecting candidature of the petitioner for promotion to Rajasthan Police Service.” In the instant matter too the Departmental Promotion Committee denied promotion to the petitioner or to say did not find him fit to be promoted on the count of a minor punishment i.e. of censure. The Committee just referred the punishment awarded and held the petitioner unfit for promotion. Such cursory consideration is impermissible under the relevant provisions. Hence, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Satyamani Tiwari (supra), this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner afresh for the purpose of promotion to the Rajasthan Police Service against the vacancies of the year 2007-08 from the date the persons junior to him were promoted as such. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. 4 Kkm/ps.