SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Sadhu Singh, who is at present Deputy Superintendent of Police in Haryana, has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Haryana through the Secretary to Government, Home Department, and the Director General of Police, Haryana, to consider the petitioner for further promotion to the rank of Superintendent of Police by assignment to him seniority in the rank of Inspector with effect from 12th September, 1973; or from 22nd March, 1974, when the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar as Sub-Inspector, and to grant to him the benefit of retrospective promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the date his juniors were promoted in 1981 and later in 1986.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner joined service in the Police Department in the erstwhile State of Punjab on 13th April, 1961. He was promoted as Sub- Inspector with effect from 16th April, 1966. His further promotion to the rank of Inspector was postponed as some adverse entries were communicated to him, His representations against these adverse entries remained pending for some time and ultimately the adverse remarks were expunged by order dated 31st March, 1981. In the meantime, the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar as Sub-Inspector on 22nd March, 1974. He was later on promoted as Inspector on 4th March, 1980. Though his representation for granting retrospective promotion was dismissed, yet he was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1st March, 1986, by order dated 12th May, 1989. The petitioner had made another representation on 10th May, 1988, for his retrospective promotion but the same was also not decided. In the meantime, when the petitioner found that persons junior to him as Sub- Inspector/Inspector were being promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, ignoring his rights, he filed the present writ petition on 25th September, 1989, which was admitted on 18th October, 1989.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the State of Haryana, though the factual position has been admitted but it has been stated that the representations and the memorial submitted by the petitioner have been since been considered and rejected on merits. It has further been stated that the petitioner was duly considered for promotion to the rank of Inspector but was not found fit on the basis of his service record when his juniors were promoted. Later on, he was again considered for promotion to List 'F' for the rank of Inspector during the years 1973 to 1980 whenever there was necessity to make promotions to the rank of Inspector. It was only on 11th February, 1979, that the name of the petitioner was approved for promotion to List 'F' and as a consequence thereof he was promoted as Inspector on 4th March, 1980. It has further been disclosed in the written statement that the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1981 and on 1st March, 1986, as none of his juniors as Inspector was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police till 28th October, 1987. On that date, the petitioner was considered for promotion to List 'G' but was superseded as his service record was not found upto the mark. Subsequently, he was again considered on 28th April, 1988, and on 23rd February, 1989, but was not found suitable; and ultimately it was on 24th October, 1989, that he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Therefore, according to the written statement, the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the ranks of Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police as and when his turn, according to seniority, came, but it was only on 4th March 1980, that he was found fit to be promoted as Inspector and on 24th October, 1989, as Deputy Superintendent of Police. His representations/memorial have since been considered and rejected. His case for promotion to the rank of Superintendent of Police can be considered under the rules only after the petitioner has completed eight years service as Deputy Superintendent of Police.