IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25484 of 2004(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ G.SASIDHARAN NAIR, NO.7111286/711220061- ASI/EXE)CISF UNIT ACT/UDL.P.O.UDYOGAMANDAL, ALWAYE 683 501, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL CISF, CISF HEAD QUARTERS, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003. 2. COMMANDANT CISF UNIT, FACT/UDL, P.O.UDYOGAMANDAL, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.24.12.83 OF THE COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT BUKARO STEEL PLANT. P2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.13.2.2004. P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.23.4.2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.7.5.1983 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. R2(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.23.5.1983 ISSUED BY THE COMMANDANT CISF BOKARO TO THE PETITIONER. R2(c): TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DT.27.10.2003 ISSUED BY R2. R2(d): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.31.10.1984 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.25484 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.P. is filed challenging the delay in promotion given to the petitioner from 1983 to 1988. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. The petitioner joined in the CISF as a Seepoy, the present equivalent being Constable, in the year 1971. He became a Naik in 1982. However, in 1983 petitioner overstayed by 22 days beyond the period of sick leave granted to him. This led to a punishment of forfeiture of one increment for six months. Thereafter petitioner was considered for promotion from 1983 onwards. However, he was promoted as Head Constable only on 23.8.1988. According to petitioner, denial of promotion for four years is on account of the minor punishment imposed on him for overstaying beyond granted leave. However, respondents' case is that petitioner was considered for promotion by every DPC held after 1983, but petitioner was found fit by the DPC in the meeting held in 1988. Consequently he was given promotion from 23.8.1988 onwards. The petitioner was later promoted as A.S.I. It is not in dispute that promotion is given based on decision taken by the DPC 2 which bases their decision on service records including confidential report written by the Controlling Officer. Petitioner's assumption that he was disqualified on account of minor punishment and was not considered for promotion for four years is incorrect. In fact, DPC had considered the case of petitioner from 1983 onwards and petitioner was found not eligible. As and when petitioner was found eligible by the DPC, he was given promotion also. I do not think there is any justification for this court to interfere with denial of promotion because on previous occasions, DPC found petitioner to be unfit. The W.P. is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms