SARUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the promotion of respondents 5 to 16 as Head Constables on the ground that respondents 5 to 16 have been illegally and arbitrarily promoted as Head Constables without considering the claims of the petitioners who are seniors to them. According to the petitioners, they joined as Constables in the Punjab Police Force and have put in more than 7 years of service and a promotion test had been held in the year 1992 and in that test 49 Constables were qualified and they were deputed to the Lower School Promotion Course at Police Training College, Phillaur. The petitioners were also among the Constables who were sent to Lower School Promotion Course and they became qualified in August 1992. Out of 49 candidates sent for the Promotion Course, only 9 Constables were promoted as Head Constables from Promotion List C. The Authorities also prepared a list C-II consisting of 18 Constables and they have been promted as ad-hoc Head Constables beyond more than 10% quota of their promotion and those people who have been promoted are juniors to the petitioners and in excess of 10% of the quota reserved under the Rules for promotion of the Constables without undergoing Lower School Promotion Course and respondents 5 to 16 are among those Constables who have been promoted in excess of 10% quota of the exemptees. According to the petitioners. Rule 13.8 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) has been violated and promotion of respondents 5 to 16 is contrary to the said Rules, as already more than 10% quota of the Constables who have not been qualified, have been promoted as Head Constables. Therefore, according to the petitioners, promotion of respondents 5 to 16, who are juniors to them, and who did not qualify the Lower School Promotion, is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, it has been admitted that respondents 5 to 16 have been given promotion on ad hoc basis and it is a fortuitous promotion and it is further stated that respondents 5 to 16 cannot claim any seniority over the seniors on the basis of fortuitons promotion and they will get regular promotion only according to their turn. According to respondents 1 to 4, the promotions have been given to respondents 5 to 16 for the good work done by them to control the terrorism. In paragraph 8 of the written statement, it has been admitted that the ad hoc promotion has been given to 32 Head Constables as against the total strength of 295. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 8, it is contended that since she had done constant exemplary work during the days of terrorism, she has been given the promotion. She further adopted the contentions raised by the official respondents in the written statement. Respondent No. 10 also raised the similar contentions. It is also contended that the Authorities have got the powers to relax the Rules under 13.21 of the Rules and, therefore, it cannot be said that the promotion of the private respondents is liable to be set aside. Respondents Nos. 11, 12 and 16 also filed a written statement raising the similar pleas.

(3.) As already observed, challenge in this writ petition is to the promotion of respondents 5 to 16, in excess of 10% quota meant for Constables who are brought on list 'C-II'. Under Rule 13.8 of the Rules, two lists have to be prepared for promotion to the post of Head Constables. List C-I shall be maintained in each district of all the Constables who have passed the Lower School Promotion Course but promotions can also be made from those candidates who have not been qualified for the Lower School Promotion Course up to the maximum of 10% quota of the vacancies of the Head Constables. According to the petitioners, they have passed the Lower School Promotion Course while respondents 5 to 16 have not passed the said Course but they have been promoted in excess of the 10% quota meant for the Constables who have not undergone the Lower School Promotion Course. From the averments in the written statement of respondents 1 to 4, it is clear that these promotions are in excess of the 10% quota from among the persons who have not undergone the Lower School Promotion Course. It has been held by this Court in C.W.P. No. 13747 of 1997 Karamvir Singh v. State of Punjab and others, decided on November 5, 1997, that those Constables on list C-II who have been promoted as Head Constables and are beyond the 10% quota should be asked to make room for those Constables who are on list C-I (those who had passed the Lower School Course), in view of the directions given by this Court in Karamvir Singh's case (Annexure P.3) and in earlier CWP No. 15684 of 1996 : (P&H), Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab.,1995 3 SCT 784The Apex Court in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994 2 SCT 556(SC), held that passing of training Course is necessary and that the discretion has been given in Rule 13.8 of the Rules to the Deputy Inspector General to relax the mandatory requirement of passing the training course, that too within the quota and promote a Constable as Head Constable. Therefore, any promotion made beyond 10% quota of the total strength of the Constables is contrary to Rule 13.8 of the Rules. This Court cannot give any direction either to promote or revert anybody. It can only give directions to the Authorities to revert those people who are in excess of the 10% quota of the strength and promote such persons who are eligible for promotion from list C-I, in accordance with their seniority-cum-merit.