BHAJAN DEV NEGI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Constable in the Police Department in the year 1979 against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1984. He passed his inter mediate course by availing the benefit of Scheduled Tribe category. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1988. He was further promoted to the post of Sub Inspector on 15.12.1994 with effect from 25.11.1993 on the basis of rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rule, applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. He was promoted to the post of Inspector on 10.12.1998 but not against the roster point reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. He joined his duties on 20.12.1998. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 27.11.2006 to consider the case of the petitioner for induction in H.P.P. Services. Petitioner's name was not recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for induction in H.P.P. Services. In sequel to the recommendations made by the committee, notification was issued on 2.12.2006. Petitioner made representation for the redressal of his grievance. It was rejected by the competent authority on 6.2.2007. Thereafter, another Departmental Promotion Committee met on 30.9.2008. Petitioner's name was not recommended by the Selection Committee. Representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 21.3.2009.

(2.) MR . Ajay Mohan Goel has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered against the vacancies of the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 on the basis of seniority list of inspectors. He has further contended that the case of the petitioner for induction in H.P.P. Services was to be considered against the general category and not against the roster point reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. He then contended that private respondents were junior to the petitioner in the seniority list of Inspectors circulated on 22.1.2003, as it stood on 1.10.2002, and also in the seniority list notified on 28.1.2005 as on 1.1.2005. He finally contended that petitioner has not been promoted to the post of Sub Inspector and Inspector against the roster point reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. In other words, his submission is that the "catch up" principle cannot be applied in case of petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.