AVTAR KRISHAN, DSP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole grievance of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that his seniority as a Sub-Inspector in the seniority list prepared on 1.1.1970 had not been correctly shown and having been placed junior to many others who were initial junior to him as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, his future chances of promotion have been adversely affected.

(2.) The brief facts in so far as they are relevant for appreciating the controversy may first be stated. The petitioner joined the Police department as an Assistant Sub-Inspector on probation on April 14, 1960 and was later confirmed on this post on 14.4.1963. He was selected for the upper school course in March 1966 and his name was brought on list 'E' on 1.11.1966 in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (referred to hereinafter as the Rules) for promotion to the next higher; post of Sub- Inspector of Police. He was actually promoted as a Sub-Inspector on 15.11.1966 and while he was so working in the year 1972, he was reverted on 25.5.1972 to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector and the following order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range :-

(3.) Now coming to the question of seniority which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, it may be stated that the department prepared the gradation list of Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors on 1.1.1970 and the petitioner as an Assistant Sub-Inspector stood at Sr. No. 31 of the said list having been placed immediately below one Mr. Ram Chander, who was at Sr. No. 30. The petitioner does not dispute the place of seniority assigned to him in this gradation list. Since the petitioner had already been promoted as Sub-Inspector on 15.11.1966 his name also appeared in the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors as it stood on 1.1.1970. In this seniority list, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 116 whereas Ram Chander who was immediately above him as Assistant Sub-Inspector was shown at Sr. No. 59. The petitioner has alleged that this seniority list although prepared by the department was never circulated and the petitioner had no opportunity to make any representation against this list. A large number of persons who were junior to the petitioner as Assistant Sub-Inspectors had been shown senior to him as Sub-Inspectors. In the meantime the petitioner had been promoted as Inspector on 15.7.1980. The seniority list of Inspectors as prepared by the Police department, Haryana as on 1.1.1981 showed Ram Chander at Sr. No. 30, whereas the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 200. The petitioner alleges that the same distortion which had taken place in the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors as on 1.1.1970 continued to exist and the petitioner was not assigned his due place in the seniority list as prepared by the department on 1.1.1987 and 1.4.1989. It is the case of the petitioner that as and when these gradation lists were circulated he represented to the department and not having had any favourable response he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition.