RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Haryana Police on 18.12.1971 and was promoted as Head Constable on 10.3.1976. The petitioner passed Intermediate School Course and his name was entered in List 'D' w.e.f. 30.9.1985. As per Rule 13.9 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume-I, the Head Constables whose names are entered in list 'D', become eligible for being promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though his name was entered in List 'D' and he was eligible for being promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, yet he was ignored and his juniors were promoted on 19.6.1988, 11.9.1988, 15.11.1988 and 21.6.1990. The petitioner on coming to know about the promotion of his juniors and non-consideration of his claim, made a representation to the respondents. However, no decision was given on the said representation. This is how the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the action of respondent No. 2 for not considering his claim for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector though his juniors were promoted on different dates, i.e. 19.6.1988, 11.9.1988, 15.11.1988 and 21.6.1990.

(2.) The respondents in their return have defended their action on two grounds : firstly, that at the time when the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had been initiated on 22.3.1988 which ended in stoppage of two future annual increments with cumulative effect, i.e. w.e.f. 26.10.1988; and secondly, the service record of the petitioner was not upto the prescribed standard, i.e. he should have earned at least 70% good (or better than) average reports. The petitioner having not earned the prescribed reports, was not entiftled for being promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. Today, when the matter came up before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the order dated 2.8.1991 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon, whereby the petitioner has been promoted as an Assistant Sub Inspector with immediate effect. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted from the date when his juniors were promoted and not from 2.8.1991.

(3.) Admittedly, no adverse report was ever conveyed to the petitioner. The promotion to the petitioner is being denied primarily on the ground that his service record was not upto the prescribed standard, i.e. that he should have earned at least 70% good (or better than) average reports. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has now been promoted w.e.f. 2.8.1991 on the basis of service record he already possessed. However, no justification has been shown as to why the petitioner was treated differently when his juniors were promoted.