NAHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexure, P/12 whereby petitioner has been ordered to be reverted to the rank of Constable. Petitioner is also seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents to confirm him as Head Constable from the date his juniors were so confirmed.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected as constable in District Police, Gurgaon on 31.12.1976. Later, vide letter dated 19.9.1984, he was selected and promoted as Head Constable. Vide Office order No. 48856 dated 27.11.1992, a show-casue notice for reversion was given to the petitioner which came to be challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 8920 of 1992. Division Bench of this Court, on November 6, 1992, on the statement made by counsel for the State, quashed the order of revision against the petitioner leaving it open to the state to pass fresh order after issuing show-cause notice. Pursuant to the order of this Court, show-cause notice was served on the petitioner who submitted his reply and was also given personal hearing. The Superintendent of Police, Faridabad, vide order dated 24.12.1992, finding no merit in the reply of the petitioner, ordered his reversion to the rank of Constable with immediate effect. The order of reversion has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and against the provisions of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Police Rules).

(3.) Respondents, in their written statement, have submitted that the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable purely on ad-hoc and temporary basis which gives no right to the petitioner to seek a declaration that he is to be treated as confirmed Head Constable. Respondents have averred that such a right can be vested only on those Head Constables who passed Lower School Course. Respondents have denied that the petitioner was promoted against any vacancy. Rather, they have submitted that no junior constable has been promoted as Head Constable except those Head Constables who were promoted likewise the petitioners and have obtained stay order from the Court. They have further averred that the petitioner cannot claim any right to the post of Head Constable. According to them, reversion has been made to make room for upgraded constables who should have rightly been promoted. They have denied that any Head Constable junior to the petitioner has been sent to the Intermediate School Course. It is rather averred that the petitioner was holding the post of Head Constable at the cost of eligible and deserving constables.