The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a penalty of censure does not prevent promotion when the selection criteria for the post include both merit and seniority. The Rajasthan High Court addressed the issue of whether a penalty of censure can prevent an individual from being promoted when the promotion criteria include both merit and seniority.
Background:
The petitioner, a retired Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP), had been seeking promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (SP) against the 2008-09 vacancy, instead of the 2015-16 vacancy. Here’s what led to his petition:
- Initial Offer and Rejection: In 2005, the petitioner was offered promotion but rejected it due to personal reasons. As a result, he wasn’t considered for promotions in the following two years—2003-04 and 2007-08—based on the Rajasthan Police Service Rules.
- Departmental Penalties: Later, after becoming eligible for promotion, the petitioner faced two departmental proceedings. The first led to a censure (a formal reprimand) in 2009, and the second resulted in the stoppage of three annual grade increments. Due to these penalties, his promotion was delayed in the years 2008-09 and 2014-15.
- Court Ruling on Penalty: The petitioner challenged the penalty of stoppage of increments, and the court set aside that penalty. After his retirement, the petitioner was promoted against the 2015-16 vacancy.
The Petitioner’s Argument:
The petitioner argued that since the penalty of censure was not a serious one, and since it doesn’t affect promotion when seniority is a key factor, he should have been promoted against the 2008-09 vacancy instead of waiting until 2015-16. He believed the state had acted unfairly in denying him promotion in the earlier years.
The Court’s Analysis:
- Seniority-Cum-Merit Promotion System: The Court clarified that the promotion system in this case was not solely based on merit. Instead, it was based on a combination of seniority and merit, where seniority held more weight than merit. Under such a system, even if someone has minor penalties (like a censure), seniority should still be given priority for promotion.
- Relevant Case Law: The Court referred to a previous case (Shri Ram Khilari Meena v. State of Rajasthan), where it was held that even minor penalties like censure cannot be used to deny a promotion if the criteria are based on seniority-cum-merit.
- Impact of Censure: The Court concluded that the penalty of censure did not prevent the petitioner from being considered for promotion, especially when seniority was an important factor in filling the promotion post. The penalty of censure was not severe enough to block his promotion.
Conclusion:
The Court directed that the 2008-09 promotion process should be revised to include the petitioner and, if found eligible, he should be promoted to the post of Superintendent of Police for that year.
In simple terms, the Court ruled that the penalty of censure should not stop someone from being promoted if the promotion is based on seniority, and the petitioner should have been promoted earlier, in 2008-09, rather than waiting for the later promotion in 2015-16.
