Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 18: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sanjeev Kumar has dismissed a petition challenging induction of 9 KPS officers in Indian Police Service (IPS).
The petition was filed by Avtar Singh Bali challenging induction of Alok Puri, Muneer Khan, Manjoo Rashid, Rajiv Kotwal, T Punchok, Abdul Qayoom Manhas, Sayeed Ahmad Sayeed, Prithvi Raj Manhas and Yoginder Koul in Indian Police Service on the ground that he (petitioner) was indisputably senior to respondents up to the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police.
He submitted that the respondents were inducted in Indian Police Service vide notification dated 09.03.2001, whereas the petitioner was inducted in Indian Police Service on 10.01.2002.
After hearing both the sides, the DB observed, from the perusal of Rule 5(4) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, it is evident that the Selection Committee shall classify all the eligible officers as outstanding, very good, good or unfit as the case may be on overall relative assessment of their service record”.
“The Committee has gone through the service record of all the eligible candidates and on the basis of overall assessment has considered the case of the petitioner as well as other candidates and classified the officers in various categories such as outstanding, very good or good. It is pertinent to mention here that APRs cannot be said to be the sole criteria for assessment of overall relative merit of the candidate. The Selection Committee on the basis of overall assessment of service records of respondents has found that they are more meritorious than the petitioner and therefore made the recommendations for their induction in Indian Police Service”, the DB said.
“The petitioner has not leveled any allegation of mala fide or bias against the members of the Selection Committee. The suitability of a candidate for promotion is to be assessed by the Selection Committee. It is trite law that this court in exercise of power of judicial review cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the Selection Committee and cannot substitute its opinion”, the DB said, adding “in the instant case, there is absolutely no material on record to interfere with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee”.
“The Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of meticulous appreciation of material available on record has held that the Selection Committee has evaluated the record of all the officers in a transparent and objective manner and has made the recommendations accordingly”, the DB further said, adding “the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal neither suffers from any infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of record warranting interference of this court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction”.
With these observations, Division Bench dismissed the petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel