KULVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed for quashing of the order Annexure P-8 issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt, the legal issue which requires adjudication by this Court it whether the petitioner has acquired a legal right to be appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police against the posts reserved for sports persons and whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued by the High Court directing the respondents to appoint him as Assistant Sub Inspector even though the post of Assistant Sub Inspector was not advertised by the competent authority.

(2.) The facts of the case are in very narrow compass. The petitioner applied for appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police on the basis of his alleged outstanding performance in the field of sports, namely, boxing. His case was forwarded by the Director General of Police, Punjab to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab Armed Police and Central Sports Officer, Punjab Police, Jalandhar Cantt. for further necessary action as would appear from the letter Annexure P-1. One Shri Jaipal Singh, Inspector conducted the trial of the petitioner and found him fit for recruitment on the basis of his boxing background. Thereafter the petitioner was enroled as constable. The petitioner made representations for his enrollment as Assistant Sub Inspector. He filed CWP No. 8674 of 1996 for directing the respondents to appoint him as Assistant Sub Inspector. By an order dated 11.6.1996 this court disposed of CWP No. 8674 of 1996 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and decide the same within three months by the passing a speaking order. In compliance of the direction given by the High Court, the Inspector General of Police, Punjab Armed Police issued the impugned order and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he did not make any outstanding achievement in sports at State/National/International level after joining the service.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions contained in the Punjab Recruitment of Sportsmen Rules, 1988 and argued that in view of the statutory provisions incorporated in these rules, a vested right has accrued to the petitioner to be appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector because he fulfils the conditions of eligibility laid down in the rules for recruitment as Assistant Sub Inspector. Learned counsel argued that the gazette notification dated 12.2.1988 in which the rules have been published should be construed as an advertisement inviting the eligible persons to apply for recruitment as Assistant Sub Inspector and even though no formal advertisement may have been issued by the respondents, the petitioner's claim ought to have been accepted for appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. Learned counsel further argued that the Additional Director General of Police has committed a patent illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector even though he, i.e. the petitioner, fulfils the conditions of eligibility specified in rule 2(d) of the Rules of 1988.