NAHAR SINGH Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for a direction that he he treated as senior to respondents 4 to 8 and be retrospectively given all benefits of that seniority including promotions. He does not wish to harm respondents 4 to 8 but only claims that he be given the benefits that he would have been entitled to had he been selected and confirmed as a Sub-Inspector in 1962 instead of in 1968. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner in 1971. His representations regarding this were dismissed by the competent authorities as far as back in 1964. His memorial to the President of India was, however, rejected in 1970.

(2.) According to the petitioner he was enlisted in the Indian Army in 1942 and after five years service therein was released when he was holding the rank of a Havildar. Thereafter he was selected as a Platoon Commander (in the rank of Sub Inspector) in the U P. Home Guards and was even promoted as an Assistant Company Commander in the rank of an Inspector. On the disbandment of the U. P. Home Guards he worked for some time in the Provincial Armed Constabulary. On Feb. 15, 1949 the then Senior Superintendent of Police selected the petitioner for recruitment in the Delhi Armed Police as a Head Constable and he joined as such He was confirmed as a Head Constable in the Delhi Armed Police on Sept. 30, 1954. Thereafter he did a lower school course at the Police Training School, Phillaur and qualified with distinction This course at Phillaur is stated to be a mandatory requirement of Punjab Police Rule 13.1 but I do not find any mention in that rule about this course While the petitioner was attending the course at Phillaur a test was held in Delhi by the Police Department for preparing Select List-D. This select list is prepared under P.P.R. 18 9 of police personnel eligible for officiating or substantive promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspectors out of those Head Constables who have been passed the lower School course and the intermediate school course at the Police Training School. The list of personnel was so prepared has to be approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Respondents 4 to 8 who were allegedly not confirmed as Head Constables and were junior to the petitioner appeared in the said test and were promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector. It is alleged that the requirement that only confirmed Head Constables could take the test was waived in their case. The petitioner says that he had no information of this test held in Oct., 1954 though he had been confirmed as Head Constable in Sept., 1954 with the result that he was denied the opportunity to qualify in the test and thus be considered for being included in the Select List-D. Accordingly, he made a representation to the then Senior Superintendent of Police on July 23, 1955. The representation was not decided despite several reminders and two years lapsed. In the meanwhile in 1956 tests were announced for "preparing Select List E which is maintained under P. P. R. 13.10 of Assistant Sub Inspectors for promotion to the rank of Sub Inspectors. Once again it is alleged respondents 4 to 8 who were neither confirmed as Assistant Sub Inspectors nor had the necessary qualifications of having passed the officers' courses at the Police Training School were permitted to sit for the test. In due course they were brought on the list and promoted as Sub Inspectors. It is contended that respondent No. 8, Sansar Singh, has even been promoted as an Inspector hoping to be further promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police He was confirmed in the rank of Sub Inspector on Aug. 15, 1970. The petitioner was permitted in 1957 to appear in the test for preparation of'Select List-D along with another 150 Head Constables. He duly qualified and was placed in the list. Although he stood first in the test in the Select List he was placed junior to one Ram Dutt, Head Constable. The petitioner represented against this discrimination but the representation was turned down on Dec. 18,1957 The petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Sub Inspector in 1958 but was not sent to undergo intermediate course at the Police Training School at Phillaur. He was sent for that course in 1960. Because he was unconfirmed Assistant Sub Inspector he was reverted to the substantive rank of Head Constable when he was sent for the intermediate school course at the Police Training School. The petitioner duly qualified from the said school in 1961 and was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in 1961 in officiating capacity. He was confirmed as A. S. I. in 1967. Respondents 4 to 8 had been confirmed as A. S. Is in Nov., 1962 though it is contended they had not qualified either in the lower school course or the intermediate school course at the Police Training School. According to the petitioner this is what constitutes his grievance of discriminatory treatment from way back in 1962. The petitioner was confirmed in the rank of Sub Inspector on Aug. 15. 1970. As already noticed earlier, respondent No. 8 has since been even promoted as an Inspector.

(3.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Delhi Armed Police on Feb. 15, 1949. Respondent No. 4 on March 17, 1949, respondent No. 5 on Sept. 7, 1949, respondent No. 6 on Jan. 5, 1950, respondent No. 7 on Oct. 12, 1950 and respondent No 8 on Nov. 11, 1950. While the petitioner and respondents 4, 5 and 7 were enrolled as Head Constables, respondents 6 to 8 were enrolled as Constables. These two respondents were promoted as Head Constables on Sept. 1, 1950 and Nov. 1950 respectively The petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 were confirmed as Head Constables on Sept. 12, 1954 Respondent No. 6 was confirmed as Head Constable on May 9, 1956. Respondent No. 7 was confirmed as Head Constable on March 17, 1959 and respondent No. 8 was confirmed as Head Constable on April 28, 1959. Respondents 4 to 8 were brought on the Select List D in 1953 whereas petitioner was brought on that list in 1957. Respondents 4 to 8 were confirmed as Assistant Sub Inspector on Nov. 15. 1962 while the petitioner was confirmed in 1967. This is where the petitioner has greatly suffered. The petitioner was confirmed as a Sub Inspector on Aug. 15. 1970 and is still serving in the same rank. Respondents 4 to 8 were confirmed as Sub Inspectors on Nov. 16, 1962 and thereafter promoted as Inspectors. Respondent No. 8 has been confirmed as an Inspector while respondents 4 to 7 are still officiating Inspectors. The contention of the petitioner Is that the respondents who are less qualified and had been discriminately promoted cannot have precedence over him and he should be given retrospective benefit of confirmation as an Assistant Sub Inspector at least from Nov. 15, 1962 with consequential promotions earlier in point of time to the other respondents.