Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
Suresh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1076 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C) No.9491 of 2020)
With
Om Parkash and Another - Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1077 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C) No.9486 of 2020)
With
Sandeep Kumar & Another - Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1078 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C) No.10169 of 2020)
Decided On : 26-03-2021
(A) Service Law – Promotion – To post of Police Inspector – Promotion to selection grade of a Sub-Inspector was pre-condition for including name of a Sub-Inspector in a list from which promotion to Inspector was to be made – Even though scheme of grant of selection grade was done away by State vide its common order dated 29.04.1987, exercise of promotion to Inspector from Sub-Inspector even after 29.04.1987 was done on the basis of requirement of Rule 13.14(2) – Rules provided a mode and manner for assessment of an official to move forward by means of a grant of selection grade and thereafter by next step on next rank – Criteria in Rules for assessing a person that he was entitled for grant of selection grade cannot be said to be meaningless with no purpose after withdrawal of selection grade – Grant of selection grade, in rank in which Police official was there, is a step for making eligible officer to move to higher rank – Selection grades are in nature of promotional scale and criteria provided for promotion to selection grade can very well be taken as criteria for further promotion which is spirit of Rules followed uniformly by State while effecting promotion – Object and purpose of Rules and methodology for evaluating Police personnel to move in higher rank in same or to next rank cannot be lost sight nor can be ignored merely because scheme was withdrawn on 29.04.1987 – No error in State promoting Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors who have eight years’ approved service to their credit, at least five years being as Sub-Inspectors – High Court has rightly upheld promotion orders of private respondents – No ground made out to interfere with judgment of High Court – Appeals dismissed. [Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rule 13.14] (Paras 18, 19 and 21)
(B) Interpretation of Statute – Rules of Construction – While construing statutory Rules such construction should be adopted which may give effect to intention or object of Rule and no such interpretation be put which may make the Rule ineffective – Principle of construction of statutory Rules would apply to interpretation of Punjab Police Rules, 1934. (Paras 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals have been filed against common judgment dated 27.07.2020 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009 which was filed by the appellants in first two appeals. The third appeal is an appeal filed by the two appellants who were intervenors in the Civil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009. The Division Bench of the High Court by impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition upholding promotion orders of all the respondent Nos.4 to 34 as Inspector in the Haryana Police.
Findings of Court:
Principle of construction of statutory Rules would apply to the interpretation of Punjab Police Rules, 1934. High Court did not commit any error in construing Rules in the manner as was construed by the High Court. We endorse the view of the High Court interpreting the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Chapter XIII of the Rules have to be conjointly and harmoniously construed.
Result ; Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. These three appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 27.07.2020 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009 which was filed by the appellants in first two appeals. The third appeal, Sandeep Kumar and another is an appeal filed by the two appellants who were intervenors in the Civil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition upholding the promotion orders of all the respondent Nos.4 to 34 as Inspector in the Haryana Police.
3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding these appeals are:
The appointment and promotion in Police Force of the State of Haryana are governed by Punjab Police Rules, 1934. In the State of Haryana prior to 2001, 100% posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police used to be filled by way of promotion. Rule 12.3 was amended vide notification dated 24.12.2001 by substituting Rule 12.3 to the following effect:
“12.3, Direct appointment of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors – Except as provided in rules 12.1 and 12.4 direct appointment shall not be made except in the rank of Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police. Such appointment in the rank of Inspector and Sub Inspector may be made up to a maximum of ten percent and fifty percent of posts respectively.”
4. The first direct recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector was held in the year 2003 in which recruitment all the three writ petitioners, Om Prakash, Sudeep Kumar Singh and Suresh Kumar were recommended for direct recruitment as Sub-Inspector. All the writ petitioners joined in May, 2003 as Sub-Inspector. The private respondents to these appeals who were arrayed as respondent Nos.4 to 34 in the writ petition were promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector from Assistant Sub-Inspector between June, 2003 and March, 2004, i.e., after the writ petitioners had joined. The respondents were promoted on the post of Inspector by orders dated 27.11.2008, 18.05.2009 and 13.08.2009. The writ petitioners aggrieved by the above mentioned promotion orders filed Civil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009 praying for following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus summoning the records of the cases.
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure-P-8), order dated 18.05.2009 (Annexure-P-9) and order dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure-P-10) whereby the private respondents have been promoted as Inspectors of Police;
(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the confirmation order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P-2), order dated 15.06.2009 (Annexure P-3) and also order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P-4);
(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Rules 12.2, 12.8 and 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules being ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to consider and promote the petitioner as Inspector with effect from the date the private respondents were promoted and directing the official respondents to grant all consequential reliefs that flow viz. seniority in the rank of Inspector, fixation of pay, payment of arrears of pay along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum etc. etc.
(vi) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may be issued.”
5. The writ petition was contested both by the State as well as by the private respondents. It was pleaded on behalf of the State that the eligibility for promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector to Inspector is eight years’ service of which five years’ service should be as Sub-Inspector, none of the writ petitioners had to their credit eight years’ service hence they being not eligible were not promoted. The writ petitioners were promoted in the year 2011 when they completed eight years
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
