JADDAMBA LAL HADA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the common judgment whereby the learned Single dismissed three identical writ petitions. The writ-petitioners had challenged the order dated 21. 9. 1993 whereby the promotions from LDC to UDC granted in Anti Corruption Department (for short-`acd') of the police treating it to be a separate range were ordered to be reviewed by convening Department Promotion Committee afresh treating the ACD as part of the Police Headquarters in terms of the Standing Order No. 1 dated 17. 1. 1996.

(2.) THE appellant-writ petitioners who had secured promotion in the meantime because of the ACD being treated as separate range than the Police Headquarters apprehending reversion consequent upon review Department Promotion Committee being held, approached this Court by filing the writ petitions. Now with the dismissal of the writ petitions, they are before the division bench in the present special appeals.

(3.) IT would be thus evident that ACD along with CID (SB) & (CB), FSL & PRC mentioned in that order were combined to be a range and it was never declared as a separate range. Director General of Police in his affidavit has clarified that in the communication dated 16. 5. 1989 issued by DIG (Headquarters), it was mentioned by mistake that vide order dated 28. 6. 1980, the ACD has been declared as separate range, whereas there is no such mention in that order. When this mistake came to light, the then Director General of Police by its order dated 21. 9. 1993 clarified the position by saying that Standing Order No. 1 dated 17. 1. 1966 has not been amended so far and therefore the combined seniority list of LDCs of the Police Headquarters and the ACD was required to be prepared and the proceedings of promotions conducted on the recommendation of various DPCs in contravention of the said Standing Order No. 1 were ordered to be cancelled and accordingly required to be revived.