PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by two petitioners seeking a mandamus to the State to promote them to the post of Sub -Inspectors in Punjab Police from the date juniors have been promoted. This prayer is based on a claim for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the two identical show cause notices dated April 28, 2013 issued to the petitioners by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot as to why their promotion as Head Constables within the 10% quota of promotion list C -II should not be re -considered. If the notice is put through the mechanical motions it aims at, it will cause the reversion of the petitioners and change their dates of promotions in successive cadres.

(2.) THE facts are that petitioners belong to the scheduled caste category. They were recruited as Constables in 1985. On December 27, 1989 both the petitioners were placed in list C -II which would bring about their promotions as Head Constables. Factually, they were not promoted from list C -II. They were promoted to Head Constables instead by operation of list C -I on July 26, 1990 as there was a backlog of SC candidates in list C -I. They continued to work on the promoted post of Head Constables when they were deputed to the intermediate course on October 01, 1994 and completed it in April 1995 when they were placed in list D -1 to earn them promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Sub -Inspectors against available vacancies.

(3.) TROUBLE started in October 1998 when a show cause notice was issued to them warning that they were promoted in excess of C -II list and why should they not be reverted to their original posts. They replied to the show cause notices stating that they were not promoted from C -II list but from C -I. Within a fortnight, the show cause notice was dropped by the Police Department on being satisfied by the reply filed. The petitioners pursued their careers and were promoted to the post of Assistant SubInspector [ASI] in September 2001. In the years 2007 and 2008 they were sent to the Upper School Course which they successfully completed in the year 2008. A seniority list of ASIs was drawn and circulated in the department. The name of the 1st petitioner figured at Sr. No.1198 whilst the name of the 2nd petitioner fell at 1361. Their cases for further promotion as Sub -Inspectors got entangled on the wrong premise that they had been promoted in excess of 10% quota as Head Constables. They were unable to retrieve themselves from the predicament while candidates junior to them in the seniority list of ASIs were promoted to the next higher post. They raised a demand for justice by making a representation to the Director General of Police, Punjab on August 25, 2011 on which a report was called from the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) but no response came forth. They appeared personally before the Director General of Police, Punjab to apprise him of their grievance upon which the SSP, Moga was directed to examine the entire matter again. The SSP, Moga in his recommendations cleared the doubts by informing the DGP, Punjab that the petitioners were promoted not from list C -II but from list C -I due to unfilled backlog of candidates from the scheduled caste category and were not available at the time when the petitioners were available for promotion on their roster point seniority amongst the scheduled caste category. The recommendations of the Senior Superintendant of Police, Moga appear to have had no effect on the Police Department for which the petitioners they approached this Court by CWP No.508 of 2012 titled Paramjit Chand and others vs. State of Punjab and others. The matter came on for hearing on January 09, 2012 and this Court was pleased to refer the matter to the Officers' Committee constituted as per the directions of the High Court by order dated March 04, 2010 in an early litigation in CWP No.566 of 2010 titled Ranjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others to look into the grievances of the Punjab Police personnel. They were asked to appear before the Officers' Committee on July 17, 2012 and then again on February 22, 2013 to respond to the notices issued by the Committee. They appeared before the Committee and brought to its mind the factual positions their cases were in are being misread by erroneously tying them up with list C -II respecting 10% quota. It was brought to bear before the Committee that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot on an earlier occasion had had the matter examined after obtaining the opinion of the District Attorney (Legal) which had led to the dropping of the 1st show cause on December 12, 1998.