GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who originally belonged to the police service in the State of Patiala and was promoted to officiate as a Superintendent of Police on 11th February, 1950 in the erstwhile State of Pepsu filed a suit against the State of Punjab in January 1961 for a declaration to Pepsu Government dated 1st December, 1954 reverting him to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (the Substantive post which was formerly held by him) was unconstitutional and void and that he was entitled to all the rights by way of arrears of salary and allowances, etc., of the post of Superintendent of Police and that he continued as such in that capacity even after the date of the impugned order. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Patiala and his appeal to the Punjab High Court met with no better fate. He has come to this Court by a certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. The appellant started his career in the police service in the year 1942 as an Assistant Superintendent of Police in the former State of Patiala. On the formation of the State of Pepsu he started to function in the same capacity in the said State. In 1950 he was promoted to officiate as a Superintendent of Police. It appears that a scheme known as the Indian Police Service Scheme was extended to Papsu in the year 1950. The appellant was one of several persons who were called up for interview before the Federal Public Service Commission in June 1950 under the orders of the Papsu Government and his name was placed on what was styled the Second List in the above scheme after the interview. He continued working as an officiating Superintendent of Police without being confirmed in that post. On December 1, 1954 he was reverted to his substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police by an order of the Inspector General of Police and he was directed to make over charge to one S. Ajaib Singh, Superintendent of Police. As he was on leave at that time he was given liberty to proceed on leave from that date after submitting a formal charge report.

(3.) The appellant's case before the Subordinate Judge in substance was that the inclusion of his name in List II of the scheme mentioned gave him a right to continue as an officiating Superintendent of Police for five years and his reversion within that period to his substantive post amounted to a punishment; the order of reversion was bad as there was no compliance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. He also complained that while he was reverted persons who were junior to him in the sense that their names had not been approved by the Special Recruitment Board for inclusion in any of the Lists set forth in the Police Service Scheme were allowed to continue in their posts as officiating Superintendents of Police:the order of reversion was bad because of discrimination. He thus complained of loss of seniority and postponement of chances of promotion in violation of his rights.