KAMALDEEP GOYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the orders dated 24.04.2006 and 28.04.2010 (Annexure P-8 colly.) confirming respondents No. 3 to 30 as Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as 'DSP') in service with retrospective effect. Prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to determine the final seniority list of DSPs in terms of law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. Ram Rakha, AIR 1979 SC 1073 (hereinafter referred to as Paramjit Singh-I') and Paramjit Singh vs. Ram Rakha, AIR 1983 SC 314 (hereinafter referred to as Paramjit Singh-II') with a consequential direction to the official respondents to treat the petitioners senior to the private respondents and to grant petitioners all consequential benefits that flow from the above relief.

(2.) PETITIONERS were directly recruited as DSPs in the State of Haryana vide appointment order dated 02.01.2004 in pursuance to an advertisement dated 05.02.2003. They were confirmed on the post of DSP on completion of 2 years probation period vide order dated 19.09.2006 w.e.f. 07.01.2006. Respondents No. 3 to 30 (hereinafter referred to as 'private respondents') were promoted to the post of DSP from the post of Inspector from the year 2000 onwards. Service of DSP in Haryana was earlier governed by Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Rs.1959 Rules'). Rule 6 of these Rules provide the method of recruitment and according to sub-Rule (i), recruitment to the service shall be made 80% by promotion from the rank of Inspector and 20% by direct appointment. These Rules were repealed by Haryana Police Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Rs.2002 Rules'). Rule 6 of these 2002 Rules provide the method of recruitment, according to which 70% posts were to be filled by promotion from the rank of Inspector and 30% by direct recruitment. Seniority under the 1959 Rules and 2002 Rules is to be governed by the date of confirmation. Probation period of two years for the members of service has also been provided.

(3.) PLACING reliance on these, petitioners, who are direct recruits, contend that the promotees have been appointed to the service in far excess than their quota as provided under the Rules whereas the direct recruitment of DSPs has not been made regularly. 29 DSPs were directly recruited between 1966 and 2003, 15 DSPs in 2004, out of which only 11 joined and 24 DSPs were directly recruited in the year 2011. From the year 1990 to 2003, the vacancy posts have been depicted year-wise which come to 213. Keeping in view the 1959 Rules and 2002 Rules, out of these 213 vacancies, 43 vacancies were required to be filled by direct quota but only 29 DSPs were recruited from direct quota during this period. On this basis, it has been contended that all the DSPs including private respondents figuring beyond 84 as per the gradation list on 05.02.2003, the date when advertisement for direct recruitment of DSP's was issued, have no right of appointment by promotion to the post of DSP on account of non- availability of promotee quota vacancies for them, which shows that the promotees have been appointed in excess of their quota. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court, these promotees, which are beyond the permissible quota, their induction into service is violative of the Rules and the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Paramjit Singh's case (supra) with regard to the principle of Rota and Quota which the ratio under the 1959 Rules as 4:1 (promotees:direct recruits) and thus, have to be pushed down to the available slot within their quota i.e. they would fall below the petitioners who are direct recruits in the seniority list. Under Rule 6 of 2002 Rules, this ratio would now be 7:3 (promotees:direct-2:1, 2:1, 3:1). Since the provisions of the Rule are parametria, the principle as laid down by the Supreme Court in Paramjit Singh's case (supra) will have full application which has been violated by the respondents while passing the impugned orders of confirmation of the private respondents, which would mean that they would be senior to the petitioners in service, which is not sustainable.