[Rajasthan Police Service Rules] Penalty Of Censure Cannot Come In Way Of Promotion Where Criteria For Is Seniority-Cum-Merit: High Court
Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that a penalty of censure is not an impediment in promotion where the selection criteria to the post is not solely based on merit but also has a component of seniority in it.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a writ petition filed by a retired Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP), seeking a direction to the State Government for considering his promotion on the post of Superintendent of Police against the vacancy of 2008-09 instead of the vacancy of 2015-16.
It was the case of the petitioner that he was offered promotion in 2005 which was rejected by him owing to some personal reasons. Due to this rejection, based on the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, he was not considered for the promotion for two subsequent recruitment years i.e. 2003-04 and 2007-08.
After that, when he became entitled for such consideration, he faced a departmental proceedings that culminated in imposition of penalty of censure in 2009. After that he faced another departmental proceedings that resulted in a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments. Due to pendency of the departmental proceedings he was not accorded promotion in 2008-09 and 2014-15.
The order of second departmental proceedings was challenged by him in which the penalty was set aside. Thereafter the petitioner came to be superannuated and after retirement, he was accorded promotion against the vacancy in the year 2015-16. It was against this order that the petition was filed by the petitioner.
It was the case of the petitioner that since the penalty of stopping three annual grade increments was set aside by the Court and the penalty of censure would not come in the way of promotion in his case, he was entitled for promotion against the vacancy of recruitment year 2008-09, instead of the year 2015-16. The counsel argued that the act of the State in denying the petitioner the promotion for the entitled year was absolutely unjust, arbitrary and illegal.
The counsel submitted that penalty of censure did not come in the way of promotion where the criteria for filling the post had been seniority or seniority cum merit and since the post that was the subject of promotion was to be filled in on the basis of seniority and experience, the petitioner was entitled for promotion for the recruitment year of 2008-09.
After hearing the counsels, the Court perused the matter and referred to the Shri Ram Khilari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in which it was held that,
“even if there existed any minor penalty or some minor adverse remark here and there, promotion could not be denied to the appellant because the criteria for promotion in this case as not entirely merit based but was on 'seniority-cum-merit' where seniority has to be given more weightage is compared to merit. In that criteria, even penalty of censure could not be a ground to deny promotion to the appellant because what is to be seen is minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration and in that view of the matter, a senior person, even though less meritorious, shall have primacy in the matter of promotion and comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made.”
In this background, the Court held that the post that was the subject of promotion in the case was not where the sole criteria of selection was merit but seniority too for which the petitioner became entitled for in 2008-09. And since penalty of censure was not an impediment for promoting the petitioner, he ought to be considered for promotion for 2008-09.
Accordingly, the Court directed review of the promotion that was conducted in 2008-09 to reconsider the case of the petitioner and if adjudged suitable, to promote him.
Title: Dinesh Kumar Mathur v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 347