JAGJEET RAJ Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the benefit of promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 31.8.1989 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief and relevant facts of the case as set out in the original application are that the applicant was initially recruited in the police department as constable (Clerical) on 22.10.1957 and with the passage of time the applicant was promoted as different levels. On 31.8.1987 he was promoted as Inspector and was confirmed as such w.e.f. 20.12.1990. The applicant claims that he was due for promotion from the post of Inspector (Head Clerk) as Deputy Superintendent of Police in accordance with rule -6 of the HP Police Service Rules. There is a requirement of 2 years continuous service as Inspector for being eligible to be considered for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is fulfilled by the applicant. Inspite of this the applicant has not been promoted on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The applicant has referred to H.P.S. Rules, 1973 under which there is no distinction between different categories of Inspector who are eligible for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the only requirement under the rules is that they should complete 2 years of continuous service as Inspector. The applicant has also referred to the decision of this Tribunal delivered in OA -398/88 titled as Hira Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, in which similar issue has been decided by allowing the benefit of promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Feeling aggrieved to this the applicant has preferred this original application seeking a direction to promote his as Deputy Superintendent of Police on completion of 2 years of service i.e. from 31.8.1989.

(3.) Reply was filed by the respondents/state in which the claim of the applicant was opposed. The main ground for disputing the claim of the applicant is that the applicant is not eligible for promotion in accordance with the latest H.P.S. Rules, 1973 as amended as per notification dated 11.11.1994 which now provides that promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police is to be made as under: "60% from substantive Inspectors who have passed the Upper School Course from Police Training College and have two years continuous service in the rank of Inspector (both officiating and substantive) are eligible for promotion as Dy. S.P. provided their minimum educational qualification is B.A." The claim of the applicant has been opposed as the applicant was serving in the executive clerical cadre and had not passed the Upper School Course. As such he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. It has been further stated in the reply that the applicant was never superseded by any junior in his cadre. As far as the confirmation of the applicant is concerned the same has been made against permanent post and he could not be confirmed as Inspector as there was no post in his cadre. As far as the issue of judgment passed in OA -398/88 is concerned the stand taken in the reply is that this judgment is not in rem but is in personem. Therefore, this judgment is not ipso fact applicable to the case of applicant. It is further submitted in the reply that at the relevant time there were no R&P Rules for the said cadre and as per the precedent the promotions in the said cadre were being made on the principle of seniority subject to rejection of being unfit. No departmental examinations have been prescribed for the personnel posted in Executive Clerical Cadre to which applicant belongs. Thus it is wrong for the applicant to aver that he passed requisite departmental examination.