CWP No. 16222 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 16222 of 2003
Date of decision: November 5, 2008
Ramesh Lal --- Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ---- Respondents
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. Gagan Pradeep Singh Bal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Ashutosh Mohunta, J (Oral).
This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No.
14955 of 2003 ( Sukhwinder Pal Singh Vs. Director General of
Police, Punjab & others), 15446 of 2003 (Charan Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and others), 16222 of 2003 (Ramesh Lal Vs. State of Punjab
and others), 16951 of 2003 ( Ravinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and others) and 17127 of 2003 (Harpritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and others) as common questions of law and facts are involved. For
brevity the facts are being derived from CWP No. 16222 of 2003.
Petitioner Ramesh Lal joined the Punjab Police
Department as a Constable on 23-9-1982. He was given C-II rank
on 12-12-1991. The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable
vide orders Annexures P2 & P3. Thereafter on 3.7.2003, Director
CWP No. 16222 of 2003 2
General of Police approved the case of the petitioner for promotion to
the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector vide Annexure P4.
Subsequently Civil Writ Petition No. 13788 of 1997 titled
‘SI Swarn Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others’ was filed, which
was decided on 21.4.1998, wherein this Court laid down the
following norms for promotion of Constable List CII.
(i) Constable on List C-II upto 10% (and no
more) of the cadre strength of Head Constables
can be promoted at any given time.
(ii) That the Constables on list C-II to the
aforesaid extent have to be promoted strictly in
accordance with the dates they are brought on
list C-II.
(iii) There would be no bar for a person on list C-II
who happens to be sportsman to be brought on
list C-II of course, subject to approval of the DIG
but his date on list C-II will be the date on which
he is brought on the said list and may be
promoted as a Head Constable in accordance
with the date he is brought on list C-II.
iv) There is no special quota of 5% for sportsmen
in list C-II. Rule 13.8(2) envisages filling of 10%
posts of the cadre of Head Constables from
amongst Constables,who might excel in various
fields which would include sports.
In pursuance of the aforementioned orders passed by
this Court, the Director General of Police passed the impugned order
(Annexure P5), whereby the promotion orders of the petitioners as
Officiating Head Constables and Adhoc Assistant Sub Inspectors in
the rank of C-II were withdrawn. This withdrawal was because the se
officials were promoted in excess of 10% quota of the list CII in
terms of Rule 13.8(2) of the Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner has
impugned the order Annexure P5 in this writ petition.
CWP No. 16222 of 2003 3
It has been argued by Mr. Bal, counsel for the petitioner
that before passing the order Annexure P5, no opportunity of hearing
was afforded to the petitioner, nor any show cause notice was
issued to him and hence the same is liable to be quashed.
Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3,
wherein it has been averred that since the petitioner had been
promoted in excess of 10% quota from list C-II to the rank of
Officiating Head Constable and further promoted to the rank of
Officiating Assistant Sub Inspector, the said benefit had to be
withdrawn in view of the observations made in the judgment in
SI Swarn Singh’s case (supra). It has been further averred that the
cases of all those persons, who had been given out of turn
promotions and whose promotion was beyond the 10% quota fixed,
were reviewed by the Director General of Police and appropriate
orders were passed in their cases.
In the instant case, the petitioner had superseded 52
officials of C-II rank, whose names have been mentioned in
Annexure R1 and 238 persons of C1 rank of Jalandhar district, who
had passed their lower school course from Punjab Police Academy,
Phillaur and were awaiting their promotion. The petitioner had also
superseded 551 Head Constables of Jalandhar District, who were
awaiting their turn of promotion to the post of Assistant Sub
Inspector since 1984.
It has been further contended by learned State counsel
that the respondents had merely followed the directions issued by
this Court in SI Swarn Singh’s case (supra) and hence no individual
show cause notice was to be served on any of the police personnel,
who had got out of turn promotion.
After hearing learned counsel for both the sides, we are
of the considered opinion that the petitioner had got promotion from
the rank of C-II Constable to the rank of Officiating Head Constable
and thereafter as Adhoc Assistant Sub Inspector in excess of 10%
quota, which was fixed for CI list. In this way, the petitioner had
superseded a large number of police personnel from C-II and C-I
lists. Since his promotion was out of turn, therefore, the Director
CWP No. 16222 of 2003 4
General of Police has rightly passed the impugned order ( Annexure
P5) withdrawing promotional benefits granted to the petitioner.
In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned
orders and accordingly dismiss all these writ petitions.
[Ashutosh Mohunta]
Judge
[Rajan Gupta]
Judge
November 5, 2008
`ask’