Telangana High Court
WP/27571/2005 of Meghu Lamani S/o Bhimsi Vs The Commandant Central Industrial on 28 December 2005
MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.27571 of 2005 28.12.2005 BETWEEN Meghu Lamani, S/o Bhimai …….PETITIONER AND The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, CISF Unit, NFC, ECIL Post, Hyderabad. …….RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE MR
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Writ Petition No.27571 of 2005
28.12.2005
BETWEEN
Meghu Lamani, S/o Bhimai
…….PETITIONER
AND
The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of HomeAffairs, CISF Unit, NFC, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.
…….RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Writ Petition No.27571 of 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner was employed as a constable in CISF in the year1990. He was not accorded any promotion for the past several years.In accordance with the circulars in force, he was extended the benefitof Assured Career Progression (ACP) on completion of 12 years ofservice in the year 2002. Through office memo, dated 23.12.2005,the respondent withdrew the said benefit on the ground that thepetitioner did not clear the Promotional Cadre Course (PCC). Thepetitioner challenges the same stating that though he failed PCC inJanuary, 2005 in one paper, he cleared the same in April, 2005 in thesupplementary.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel appearing for the respondent.
It is not in dispute that extension of the benefit extended underACP depends upon the successful completion of PCC by thecandidates. If the PCC is not completed within the stipulated time, thebenefit of ACP is liable to be withdrawn.
The petitioner states that every candidate is entitled to appearfor the PCC for three times and it is only when the candidate is notsuccessful in three attempts, the benefit under ACP is liable to bewithdrawn.
The respondent has withdrawn the benefit of ACP to the petitioner, in view of the fact that the petitioner failed in PCC inJanuary, 2005. The question as to whether the petitioner cleared thePCC at a later stage and if so, what are the consequences thereof,needs to be considered by the respondent. The petitioner can bringthe factum of his subsequent clearance of the examination to therespondent and necessary orders need be passed by the latter.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to thepetitioner to make a representation to the respondent bringing to hisnotice the factum of clearance of PCC in April, 2005 with necessaryenclosures. On receiving the same, the respondent shall consider itwith reference to the existing rules and issue necessary orders withina period of two months therefrom. Till such time, no recovery shall beeffected from the petitioner. No costs.
VGB
_________________
28.12.2005