RAN SINGH KALSON Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was referred to us primarily to resolve a conflict between two single Bench decisions of this Court in Shadi Lal v/s. Deputy Commissioner, gurgaon [ (1974) 1 S. L. R. 217] and Jaswant singh Brar v/s. State of Punjab [ (1975) 1 S. L. R. 899], on the point as to whether once a government servant is allowed to cross efficiency bar, adverse reports prior thereto could be taken into consideration while judging his suitability for promotion to a higher rank but as the petition as a whole is before us for disposal, the respective pleadings and contentions of the parties may first be noticed first.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Deputy superintendent of Police to the Punjab Police service on 21/6/1963, as a result of the competetive examination held by the Punjab Public Service Commission and confirmed as such on 21/12/1965. The pay-scale of the petitioner in the year 1971 was Rs. 400-30-580/140-720-40-800-50-1000/ 50-1150, and he was to cross the first efficiency bar on 2/2/1971. He was, however, served with a notice, dated 12/11/1971, to show cause against his proposed holding up at the efficiency bar on the basis of four confidential reports for the periods 1/4/1965 to 31/3/1966, 1/11/1966 to 31/3/1967, 1/4/1967 to 31/3/1968 and 8/12/1970 to 31/3/1971, The representation made by the petitioner, in reply to the said notice, was rejected and he was held up at the efficiency bar vide order, dated 27/12/1971. He filed an appeal against this order which was allowed by the government vide order, dated 7/6/1972. In the meantime, V. K. Kapur, respondent 3, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted to officiate as Superintendent of Police and against his promotion the petitioner made a representation on 17/6/1972. While this representation was still pending decision, some more posts of Superintendents of Police in the non-Indian Police Service Cadre fell vacant and respondents 7 to 9, who were also junior to the petitioner, were promoted and appointed to officiate as Superintendents of Police, with effect from 26/2/1973. 31/1/1973 and 16/1/1973, respectively. Admittedly, while considering the suitability of the petitioner for promotion, the said four reports were taken into consideration. The petitioner has challenged his supersession and promotion of the officers junior to him, apart from the allegations of mala fide against j. C. Vachher, the then Inspector-General of police, Haryana and Kalyan Rudra, the then superintendent of Police, Rohtak, on the ground that the adverse reports prior to the date he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar had been illegally taken into consideration while judging his suitability for promotion and that the representations made by him against his supersession and adverse entries. were summarily rejected without proper application of mind, by a non-speaking order.

(3.) THE other challenge of the petitioner is directed against the non-inclusion of his name in the select list under regulation 5 of the indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, prepared by the select committee for promotion to the Indian police Service Cadre in December 1972. According to the petitioner, his name was not considered by the select committee because of the non-issuance of integrity certificate by the state Government and, if considered, was rejected on the basis of the said four confidential reports. The instructions of the government of India issued under regulation 4 prescribing the requirement of integrity certificate, it was argued, were illegal and void, being contrary to the statutory regulations. The consideration of the four confidential reports has been attacked on the grounds already noticed above.