INSPECTOR GURPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the report furnished by the Officers Committee at Annexure P4 duly approved by the Director General of Police, Punjab on 3.2.2011, as also to the action of the official respondents in having acted upon the recommendations contained in such impugned report whereby the private respondents have been declared senior to the petitioners.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were directly recruited as Assistant Sub Inspectors in the Punjab Police and joined as such on different dates in the month of January/February, 1990. The petitioners were thereafter promoted as Sub Inspectors on 28.9.2001, 11.3.1995 and 1.2.2001 respectively, and further promoted as Inspectors on 1.1.2010, 30.6.2005 and 1.1.2010. The private respondents were, initially, recruited to the police service as Constables and further promoted as Head Constables. They were promoted as officiating Assistant Sub Inspectors in April/May, 1990.

(3.) An Officers Committee was constituted by this Court on 13.10.2010 in the case of Inspector Pritam Singh who had filed Civil Writ Petition No.5077 of 2010. The recommendations of the Officers Committee were to the effect that all promotees would be deemed to have been confirmed two years after they were promoted as Assistant Sub Inspectors unless their probation period was specifically extended in the light of Rule 13.18 of Punjab Police Rules,1934. Likewise, all direct recruit probationer Assistant Sub Inspectors would be deemed to be confirmed three years after their appointment unless their period of probation was specifically extended as per Rule 12.8 of 1934 Rules. Such recommendations were to apply in respect of appointments made upto 4.5.1994 (whether by direct recruitment or by promotion) i.e. the date the Punjab (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (for short '1994 Rules') were promulgated.