SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the seniority of lower subordinates in the Punjab Police Force is governed by the date of their appointment only and is not to be finally determined by the date of their confirmation, is the significant question which has necessitated this reference to the Full Bench.

(2.) THE facts in so far as they are relevant to the basic legal issue aforesaid, lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner joined the Punjab Police Force as a Constable on the 7th July. 1964 and was promoted as Head-Constable with effect from the 15th of April, 1967. As against this, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted as Head-Constables after the petitioner, on August 5, 1969 and August 10, 1969, respectively. However, both these respondents were later confirmed as Head-Constables on the 22nd of March. 1976. The admitted position is that the petitioner continues to be an unconfirmed Head-Constable so far.

(3.) AT the very outset, I may notice that the learned counsel for the petitioner faced an uphill task in so far as he was canvassing for a construction which has nothing to commend itself on principle. In effect the stand on behalf of the petitioner is that an unconfirmed officer is to rank senior to one duly confirmed in that very rank. In actual practice, it would lead to the effect that an officer who because of his atrocious service record may not be even fit for confirmation, would nevertheless continue to claim seniority over others who by virtue of their excellent records stand duly confirmed. This would be so owing to the mere incident of his having been promoted earlier to them. That such a situation would be anomalous is indeed plain end was even conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, unless compelled by the clearest mandate of the law, one would find it difficult to arrive at such a result on principles of logic. I find no such statutory compulsion in the language of the rules to which I would advert in detail hereafter. The learned counsel for the petitioner was hard put to pin point any other provisions in the whole gamut of numerous service rules which would provide that an unconfirmed person is to rank senior to another confirmed in the same rank. By and large, the rationale and tenor of service rules is that a confirmed and substantive member of the service is to rank higher than those not confirmed. I, therefore, on principle, see no reason to easily accede to a construction which would introduce a rather anomalous rule of seniority within a disciplined force.