UMA SHANKER VYAS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14th July, 1987 i.e. Annexure - 11 whereby the petitioner was reverted from the post of Sub-Inspector to that of Assistant Sub-Inspector, in pursuance of the order issued by the Dy.Inspector, in pursuance of the order issued by the Dy.Inspector General of Police (Headquarters) Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 13th July, 1987 and the petitioner has also challenged the exclusion of his name from the select list dated 28th Oct., 1987 on the basis of which the candidates were to be sent for Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.

(2.) The petitioner has come with a case that he was a holder of the qualification of M.A., LL.B. and was initially appointed as Constable on temporary basis vide order dated 31st Dec., 1974 with effect from 1.1.1975 and was sub,sequently confirmed on the post of Constable with effect from 28th May, 1979 vide order 'dated 2nd Aug., 1982. The petitioner states that he had been promoted as Head Constable on urgent temporary basis by the order dated 9th Nov., 1977 and he passed the qualifying examination as well as the Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Head Constable on 26th Nov., 1983 and was then confirmed as Head Constable with effect from 26th Nov., 1983 vide order dated 12th Sept., 1984. The petitioner's case is that he was further promoted as Asstt. Sub-Inspector on urgent temporary basis vide order dated 1.10.1984 issued under the signatures of the Superintendent of Police(I), Computer Centre, Rajasthan, Jaipur. According to the petitioner he was then promoted as Sub- Inspector on temporary basis vide order dated 9th Nov., 1985.

(3.) The petitioner's initial appointment as Constable was in the Crime Branch. In the year 1976 a new Section, namely, Electronic Data Processing (EDP) Cell came into existence as a part of the Crime Branch and the petitioner was given a posting in the EDP Cell and he was also promoted as Head Constable in the EDP Cell itself. While the petitioner was working as Head Constable in the EDP Cell he was sent for training in computer operation by the Government at Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad where the petitioner underwent training in computer operations from 6th March, 1978 to 19th March, 1978. On 12th Feb., 1980, a separate computer centre was established in the Police Department and the petitioner continued to work in the Computer Centre as head Constable and thereafter as Asstt. Sub-Inspector. In the year 1987, the computer centre was renamed as State Crime Record Bureau(S.C.R.B.) and an independent Dy.Inspector General of Police is its Director. This State Crime Record Bureau has two attached units, namely, Finger Print Bureau and State Modus Operandi Bureau. The Finger Print Bureau is an independent unit for the purpose of promotion, seniority, appointment etc., and according to the petitioner it has no relation whatsoever with the State Crime Record Bureau. Similarly appointments, promotions and seniority etc. in the State Crime Record Bureau are made within the S.C.R.B. itself. The petitioner's case is-that it is only for the purpose of qualifying examination for the post of Sub-Inspector that the candidates of C.I.D.(CB) and the employees of State Crime Record Bureau have been put together and otherwise they have never been treated as part of the CID(CB) of the Police Department and in this regard the petitioner has placed reliance on the letter dated 26th August,1987 sent by the Dy. Secretary Home(Gr.II) Department to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur which is on record as Annex. 5. The petitioner has referred to one more letter written by the Chief Accounts Officer, Police headquarters to the Director, State Crime Record Bureau on 26th Oct., 1987 which is on record as Annex.6. Thus the petitioner has tried to make out a case that the State Crime Record Bureau is an independent separate range in the Police Department and it has no relation whatsoever with the CID(CB) or other range so far as the appointments, promotions, seniority etc., are concerned and the petitioner has alleged that even before the formation of Bureau when Computer Centre was functioning, the Computer Centre was treated as an independent range.