CONSTABLE BALKARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala dated 13.7.1996, Annexure P-6. The petitioner who was recruited as police Constable was brought in list B for sending him to Lower School Course vide order dated 28.12.1992. He had to undergo lower school course commencing from 21.10.1993. Meanwhile the petitioner was involved in a case registered under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code in F.I.R. No.47 dated 17.8.1993 and the petitioner was arrested on the same very date. In view of his arrest and involvement in the criminal case he was suspended by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur vide order dated 17.9.1993. The criminal case against the petitioner ultimately ended in acquittal and it became final since the State has not preferred any appeal. The petitioner was reinstated in service on 18.6.1996 with effect from the date of his suspension i.e. 17.8:1993. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur for sending him to the lower school course and it was forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala. That representation was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated 13.7.1996 and he was required to compete again with the new candidates. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated 20.09.1996 observing as under:-

(2.) Learned Single Judge in Civil Writ No. 4487 of 1973 decided on 28.3.1974 (Kashmir Singh Constable and Ors. v. The Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur and Ors.) held that proviso to Rule 13.7.(2) is inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 13.7.(1) and 13.8.A. Accordingly struck down the said proviso. The said decision with regard to striking down the proviso to rule 13.7(2) was reversed in Letters Patent Appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in the Superintendent of Police and Ors. v. Kashmir Singh Constable and Ors., (1975(2) S.L.R. 116) but at the same time, the learned Judge of the Division Bench held that the proviso does not in any way lead to the impression that the names of the petitioner-respondents were impliedly removed from list B by way of punishment. The Division Bench further held that rule 13.7(2) so far as it prescribes age limit at 30 years for the constables for entry into the list B, is unreasonable and ultra-vires Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the police Constable who has not been sent for training for whatsoever reason in that year has to compete with the other candidates in subsequent year and he has to undergo Lower School Course. In this view of the matter. I do not find any ground warranting interference in the impugned order passed by the Official respondents. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the case of the petitioner may be considered alongwith other candidates. If the petitioner is found suitable irrespective of his age, he shall be deputed for Lower School Course. No Costs.