PRITAM KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has a two-fold grievance. Firstly she is aggrieved by the order dated October 1, 1991, by which respondent No. 5 was confirmed in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, while the petitioner was merely placed on probation for a period of one year. Secondly, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of Respondent No. 4 in deputing Respondent No. 5 for the Upper School Course and ignoring her.

(2.) In order to resolve this controversy, only a few admitted facts need to be noticed. The petitioner was confirmed as Head Constable with effect from July 1, 1981. She was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector on October 22, 1982. This promotion was made on purely ad hoc basis. She was regularly promoted on September 17, 1986. As against this, respondent No. 5 was confirmed as Head Constable four years after the petitioner with effect from July 1, 1985. She was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on September 17, 1986. On basis of these facts, the petitioner alleges, and it appears rightly, that she was senior to Respondent No. 5 and had a right to be considered for promotion as well as for deputation to the Upper School Course prior to her.

(3.) The respondents contest this claim on the ground that Respondent No. 5 was "Confirmed in the rank of ASI earlier to the petitioner on the basis of her better service record." It has been further averred that the petitioner had just average record of service and had not completed 5 years' service as ASI on 1.7.1991. So she was not eligible for deputation to Upper School Course."