HC SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 9061, 9055, 9611, 9915 and 9783 of 1995. The common facts necessary for the disposal of the petitions have been taken from C.W.P. No. 9061 of 1995.

(2.) THE petitioners were selected out of 15000 candidates in March 1998 for enrolment in the Haryana Commando Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commando Force'), which was raised as a special branch of the Haryana Police in the year 1986 -87. This force is governed by the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) as applicable to the State of Haryana. At the time of the recruitment 100 posts of Head Constables were sanctioned in the Commando Force and these were manned by deputationists from other Branches of the Haryana Police. As the work and conduct of the petitioners was outstanding a proposal was put forth by the respective Superintendents of Police to the Deputy Inspector General of Police for promotion of eligible Constables to the rank of Head Constables. As a result of this 20 Constables were recommended for promotion on the ground that they are qualified to be promoted as Head Constables because they had undergone the Ranger Commando Course at National Security Guards, Manesar. The petitioners were thereafter promoted to the post of Head Constables and joined the permanent vacancies available in the cadre w.e.f. 17.7.1992. On promotion, they were put on probation and the appointments were made against permanent posts of Head Constables as such were to be governed by rule 13.18 of the Rules although in the order these promotions were shown to have been made on ad hoc basis (Annexure P -1). According to the petitioners, in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana and others : JT 1994 (2) S.C. 157 :, 1994(2) SCT 556 (SC), the Apex Court has observed that there is no word 'ad hoc' in the Police Rules and any promotion made in accordance with the Rules 13.1(2) or 13.18 of the Rules. On 29.6.1995, respondent No. 4 had ordered the reversion of the petitioners inspite of the fact that they had completed three years service and their work and conduct for more than two years was found to be outstanding. The petitioners seek to assail the orders of their reversion on the ground that in view of the judgment in Rishal Singh's case (supra) as they have completed two years' probation, they are entitled and deemed to have been confirmed and could not be reverted without complying with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or without following the procedure laid down in rule 16.24. They also submit that although the petitioners have not passed their Lower School Course, they are entitled to be confirmed as Exemptee Head Constables under the provisions of Rule 13.8(2) of the Rules.

(3.) THE private respondents filed a separate written statement in which a preliminary objection was taken on the basis of police letter dated 4.12.1991 in which it was indicated as under : -