HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary though somewhat significant question which alone has been agitated herein is--whether the provisions of R. 19.14 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 are mandatory or directory in nature.

(2.) In view of the pristinely legal nature of the aforesaid question, the facts would obviously pale into insignificance and therefore, may be noticed with relative brevity. All the 38 petitioners. in this joint petition are constables serving in the Punjab Police Force. A test for selection to the promotion post for constables, conveniently labelled as Lower School Course, was held by the authorities in Jan., 1980. Therein amongst, others, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were selected. It is the petitioners' claim that both of them ranked junior to all the petitioners and their selection as also that of the other constables has been challenged on a number of grounds.

(3.) This case first cam up before my learned brother S. P. Goyal, J sitting singly. The primary ground pressed was with regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of R. 19.14 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Police Rules'), and it was the stand that this rule being mandatory, the whole selection was consequently vitiated. Reliance on behalf of the petitioners was primarily placed on a single Bench decision of this Court in C. W. P. No. 1592 of 1978 (Om Prakash v. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on Sept. 25, 1978*. In view of the significance of the issue and apparently doubting the correctness of the earlier view, the case has been referred for decision to the Division Bench.