High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
K.P.MAHESH KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 3265 of 1999(L)  RD-KL 571 (9 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMOP No. 3265 of 1999(L)
1. K.P.MAHESH KUMAR
1. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.RAJAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.```````````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 3265 OF 1999 L ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police. He is aggrieved by the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee by which the petitioner was not included in the select list for promotion as Circle Inspector in the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion committee which met on 7.2.1996 and 12.2.1996. The Departmental Promotion Committee took this view against the petitioner in view of the punishment imposed on the petitioner of barring of increments within three years prior to the date when his case was considered for inclusion in the select list. The petitioner's contention is that in so far as no punishment of withholding of promotion has been imposed on the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be held to be ineligible to be included in the select list for the two minor punishments of barring of increments.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the question as to whether a person is fit to be included in the select list for promotion as Circle Inspector has to be considered on the basis of his past records within three years. Even when no punishment of withholding of promotion has been imposed on the petitioner, the question as to whether the petitioner is suitable for such promotion has to be decided taking into account the punishments imposed on him during the three years prior to the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee OP.3265/66 2 considered the petitioner's case. In the present case, during the said period of three years, the petitioner was punished twice. As such, there was no illegality or unsustainability in the Departmental Promotion Committee taking into account those punishments for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not fit to be included in the select list for promotion to the post of Circle Inspector for the relevant period, submits the learned Government Pleader.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. I am of opinion that the stand taken by the respondents is reasonable and sustainable. Simply because no punishment of barring of promotion has been imposed on him a tainted officer is not entitled to be promoted as of right. The Departmental Promotion Committee has to assess the suitability of the petitioner for promotion taking into account his service records and which would include the two punishments imposed on him within three years prior to the date when his case was considered for inclusion in the select list. Taking into account of such punishment which is the reason for non-inclusion of the petitioner in the select list cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable by any stretch of imagination. That being so, I do not find any merit in this original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)aks
S. SIRI JAGAN , J.OP No.3265/99 L
J U D G M E N T
9th January, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.