TULSI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute herein relates to the seniority of a police officer directly appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police vis -a -vis others who were promoted to that post. Facts giving rise to this petition lie in a narrow compass and may firstly be noticed.

(2.) THE State of Punjab through its Home Department sent a requisition to the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) for filing up, among others, 23 posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSP for the sake of brevity). In pursuance to this requisition the Commission issued a public notice initiating applications from eligible candidates as per the conditions contained therein. Petitioner was one of the candidates who applied for a post and after successfully competing in the written examination and also in the interview and physical fitness test he was selected by the Commission and his name was recommended for appointment as per letter dated 11.10.1989. However, because of a stay order granted by a civil court in a suit filed by one of the unsuccessful candidates the appointments to the advertised posts had been stayed. Stay was later vacated and it was on the vacation of the stay order on 30.3.1990 that the selected candidates including the petitioner were issued appointment letter on 6.4.1990 and the petitioner joined the post on 21.4.1990. It is common case of the parties that the petitioner was put on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of his appointment and that on successful completion of the probationary period he was confirmed as DSP on 21.4.1992.

(3.) IN response to the notice issued by this Court the respondents have filed their separate written statements and the contentions advanced by the petitioner have been controverted though the factual position is by and large admitted.