JANG BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order dated 19-9-1997 contained in Annexure '3' to the writ petition, by which the petitioners have been reverted from the post of Head constable. He has assailed the said order on the ground that the said order has been passed without approval of the Deputy 'Inspector General of Police, in violation of Regulation 455 of the Police Regulations. The petitioners have also submitted a representation which is Annexure '7' to the writ petition.

(2.) After having heard Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. R. Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners; having regard to Regulations 450, 454 and 455 of the Police Regulations, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned respondent.

(3.) Sri Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand contends that the promotion in the present case was given on the basis of range itself. But such promotion on the pest of Head-constable on the basis of seniority throughout the State, cannot be given separately in the range only. In order to grant promotion to the post of Head-constables on the basis of seniority throughout the State itself, only the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) has been entrusted to grant such promotion. Thus the promotion given to the petitioners on the basis that the petitioners are working, appears to be void ab initio and, as such, non est and, therefore, the petitioner!; cannot claim any right no the basis whereof interim order could be issued. Since the promotion was void ab initio, no hearing is also necessary. The question of giving opportunity of hearing before reversion is confined to the revision of Head-constables on probation. In the present case the said provisions as contained in Regulation 450 of the police Regulations is not attracted in asmuchas it was not a reversion on the ground of unsatisfactory performance during probation, but the reversion is on the ground that the promotion itself was non-est.