ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein has claimed the relief that the respondents No.1 to 4 may be directed to order promotion of the applicant as Head Constable w.e.f. 24.6.1991 and place him above responder No.5 to 7 in seniority.

(2.) The case of the applicant as made out in the original application is that he joined as Constable in H.P. Police Department in 1951 and was confirmed such in the year 1955. He was promoted as LHC 4 or 5 years before the filing this original application. At the time of filing this original application he had attain the age of 54 years. In the Police Department 10% quota for promotion as he constable is reserved for those constables who did not undergo lower school course and promotion against so reserved quota has to be made on the basis seniority tempered with merit. The respondents, however, ordered promotions respondents No.5 to 7 as Head Constables respectively w.e.f. 20.6.1991, 7.12.1992 and 2.6.1993 and ignored the applicant though he was senior in service to them and this was done without serving any show cause notice on the applies Thus, according to the applicant to lost seniority and chances of promotion as result of penal circumstances1, therefore, Article 311 of the Constitution attracted and the promotions of respondents No. 5 to 7 are rendered with the jurisdiction, illegal and against PPR 13 -1 and other relevant provisions of Punjab Police Rules as applicable to the Himachal Pradesh. About his own merits, the case of the applicant is that his service record is unblemished and he was award 13 commendation certificates some of which were with cash rewards, thereto he deserved to be considered and promoted in preference to his juniors i respondents No.5 to 7, hence this original application.

(3.) The respondents 5 to 7 are exparte whereas the respondents No.1 to contested the claim of the applicant. In the reply filed by them while admitting t age, dates of appointment, confirmation and promotion of the applicant as LHC it claimed that the applicant had earned 13 commendation certificates, out of which two were with cash rewards. It is further claimed that the Constables who have r passed the lower school course at PTS but are otherwise considered suitable m with the approval of the Deputy Inspector General of Police be promoted as He; Constables upto the maximum limit of 15% of the vacancies. This percentage furthers sub divided 5% vacancies are ear -marked to those Constables who ha put in 30 years of service and have reached at the age of 55 and 10% are for others. The applicant was considered against 10% exempted quota but the DF did not find him suitable in comparison with the other candidates as per the rules where under such promotion could be given on the basis of merit tempered with seniority. The respondents thus claim that the decision taken by the DPC giving/denying the promotions in question after due consideration in accordant with the Rules may be upheld and this original application may be dismissed.