STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st July, 1992 passed by Additional Senior Sub Judge, Kapurthala, and the judgment dated 25th January, 1993, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff joined the Police Department at Hoshiarpur in 1961 and he was absorbed in the Clerical cadre (English Branch ). He was promoted as officiating Constable in the Executive Clerical Cadre (English Branch) with effect from 11th February, 1973. He was placed on probation for a period of two years as officiating Head Constable. However, after the expiry of the said two years, he was not confirmed as Head Constable though the juniors to the plaintiff were confirmed. Finally, he was confirmed as Head Constable on 1st January, 1988. Vide orders, dated 21st April, 1988, juniors to the plaintiff were promoted as Officiating Assistant Sub Inspectors in the executive clerical cadre but the plaintiff was ignored. Aggrieved by the orders of the promotion of his juniors, the plaintiff submitted representation which was rejected. Thereafter, he served a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code (in short CPC ). Since despite the service of the said notice, he was not granted relief, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration on 29th October, 1988 and in this suit it was prayed that decree be passed to the effect that the orders dated 21st April, 1988 promoting the junior most persons than the plaintiff were illegal, void, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules. It was further prayed that the plaintiff be promoted with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted with all the consequential benefits attached to the post. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court by his judgment, dated 21st July, 1992, in the following terms:

(3.) MR . Tarun Vashisht, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the State, has raised two points. Firstly he submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. In this connection, he drew my attention to preliminary objection No. 2 of the written statement filed before the learned trial Court which reads as under: