R.L. BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS and Respondents No. 2 to 7 were recruited/ appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission in the pay scale of Rs. 940 -1,850 vide Memo No. 7885 -3H91/85/27424 -39, dated 24th October, 1985 (Annexure P -J). It was stipulated in the appointment order that the service condition of the Petitioner shall be governed by the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 as amended from time to time and other Rules/Orders of the State Government. Condition No. 6 of the appointment order provides for fixation of seniority, according to the merit fixed by the Punjab Public Service Commission and other rules/ instructions on the subject. The Petitioner and the private Respondents joined the service on their appointment. In the order of merit, the Petitioner figured at Sr. No. 11 whereas Respondents No. 2 to 7 figured at Sr. Nos. 5, 4 and 6 to 9, respectively. Besides above mentioned statutory rules, there were government instructions concerning the appointment and seniority. Since the appointments were also against vacancies for various reserved categories, the instructions notified 100 points Roster. It was stipulated that the seniority should be assigned as per the Roster Point reserved for Scheduled Castes and Backwared Classes in the 100 point Roster irrespective of their position in the merit list or general seniority list in Class I, II, III and IV service. The Petitioner and private Respondents were recruited to Class II Service (Dy. SP). The Petitioner belongs to Reserved Category of Scheduled Castes whereas Respondents No. 2 to 7 are from General Category. It appears that the State notified the seniority in the order of merit achieved by the Petitioner and private Respondents. The Petitioner seems to have made representations for re -fixation of the seniority on the basis of Roster points. On the representation of the Petitioner, the Home Department modified the merit seniority to the Roster point seniority. The Petitioner who was at Sr. No. 11 in the meirt list was brought at Sr. No. 1 and private Respondents were placed below him on the basis of their inter -se merit. Some of the reserved category candidates were also inducted at roster slots on the basis of reservation earmarked for the reserved cagetories vide letter dated 28th August, 1999 (Annexure P -3). The Director General of Police vide Memo No. 480 -552/Con. SA -6, dated 6th November, 1995 (Annexure P -5) notified the seniority of the Dy. S.P. directly recruited during the years 1985 to 1991. The Petitioner and private Respondents having been recruited in the year 1985, their seniority was fixed vide the aforesaid Circular.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the Petitioner and private Respondents were considered for induction into I.P.S. and all of them were inducted into I.P.S. in the year 1995 vide order dated 25th July, 1995. They were allotted year of allotment as 1991 vide letter dated 21st April, 1996 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India (Annexure P -6). They were also placed in the Selection Grade of Rs. 14,300 - - 18,300 with effect from 1st January, 2004 vide State Government's order dated 31st October, 2005. The Petitioner and private Respondents were further promoted to the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police in the pay scale of Rs. 16,400 - -2,000 with effect from 1st January, 2005 vide State Government's order dated 24th April, 2006. Presently, the Petitioner and the private Respondents are working as Deputy Inspector General of Police.

(3.) ON consideration of the reply submitted by the Petitioner to the proposed seniority, Respondents have passed the impugned order dated 22nd September, 2008 issued under endorsement dated 26th September, 2006 (Annexure P -13) whereby seniority of the Petitioner and the private Respondents have been re -determined. The Petitioner have been placed at Sr. No. 10 whereas the private Respondents has been placed above the Petitioner from Sr. Nos. 4 to 9, respectively. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 22nd September, 2008 (Annexure P -13), the Petitioner has questioned its legality, validity and constitutionality in the present petition. On the basis of pleadings, following points arise for consideration: