SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
K.M. JOSEPH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Sushil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 401 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 30370 of 2017)
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Service Law – Promotion – From post of Constable to post of Head Constable under 10% quota for outstanding performance – Recommendations of SP are not final until same is approved by IG – It is IG who shall accord approval only upon scrutiny – Recommendation of DPC is not final – Recommendation of DPC does not give any indefinite right to be appointed as Head Constable – 10% quota for constables having outstanding performance will be filled on the basis of State level comparative merits – Mere recommendation of SP at initial stage is not sufficient to claim right for promotion – Merits and accolades of candidates recommended for promotion vary from year to year on a comparative merit scale – Competitive environment differs from year to year – Scrutiny is dynamic and cannot be adjudged on the basis of a previous year’s performance – Appellant’s accolades may not have made a fit case to be recommended in year 2004 but same could make a fit case to be considered in a subsequent year – It is domain of IG as also CDPC to analyse, consider and clear t names of candidates found fit to be promoted in List B-I for that year and it must best be left to discretion of said authorities – Court not inclined to interfere with judgment of High Court – Appeal dismissed. [Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rule 13.7] (Paras 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was appointed as a Constable in the year 1995. It is his case that he was positioned as a Head Constable under the extent ORP Policy on 21.08.2001. Due to his acts of bravery his name was recommended by Superintendent of Police for promotion under the 10% quota of outstanding performance for inclusion in the B-I List for promotion to post of Head Constable in the year 21.01.2004. However, the Appellant’s name was dropped down by the Inspector General of Police, when only 7 out of the 9 names were forwarded to the Central Departmental Promotion Committee (CDPC). Three years thereafter, i.e., in 2007 his name was again forwarded by the SP and this time it was passed by IG, by virtue of which he was granted promotion and was made the Officiating Head Constable from 26.10.2008. It is his grievance that he should have been promoted in the year 2004 itself and that the delay in appointing him in 2008 is illegal and arbitrary.
Findings of Court:
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench for good reasons refrained from going into the individual comparative merit. In judicial review proceedings, Courts are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This Civil Appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 29.07.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in LPA No. 1910 of 2011.
3. The Appellant was appointed as a Constable in the year 1995. It is his case that he was positioned as a Head Constable under the extent ORP Policy on 21.08.2001. Due to his acts of bravery his name was recommended by the Superintendent of Police (hereinafter ‘the SP’) for promotion under the 10% quota of outstanding performance for inclusion in the B-I List for promotion to the post of Head Constable in the year 21.01.2004. However, the Appellant’s name was dropped down by the Inspector General of Police (hereinafter the ‘IG’), when only 7 out of the 9 names were forwarded to the Central Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter the ‘CDPC’). Three years thereafter, i.e., in 2007 his name was again forwarded by the SP and this time it was passed by the IG, by virtue of which he was granted promotion and was made the Officiating Head Constable from 26.10.2008. It is his grievance that he should have been promoted in the year 2004 itself and that the delay in appointing him in 2008 is illegal and arbitrary. He filed a writ petition in 2011 seeking retrospective promotion with effect from 21.01.2004. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that selection is not a matter of right. Writ appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench by the order impugned herein.
4. The learned counsel for the Appellant, Shri Surender Kumar Gupta has argued that the IG has no power to interfere with the recommendation of the SP. He further alleges that when the SP has forwarded the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter ‘DPC’), the IG does not act as the appellate authority and cannot substitute his decision to that of the DPC. It is also contended that the IG has no power to adjudge the comparative merit in list B-I prepared by the DPC. He further submits that the IG has not given any reasons nor was the Appellant given any opportunity of hearing. He alleges that he is far more meritorious than the ones who have been recommended by the SP and approved by the IG in 2004. It is his case that the decision is arbitrary because the very same credentials enabled him to be selected and recommended in 2007. He has therefore prayed for retrospective promotion from the year 2004.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent-State, Shri Raj Singh Rana, has submitted that the names recommended by the SP to the CDPC are only provisional and subject to ratification by the IG, and mere forwarding of the name of the Appellant by the SP will not create any right of promotion in his favour. He has submitted that the word “through” in Rule 13.7(9) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 calls for application of mind by the IG and not mere forwarding of the recommendations as sent by the concerned unit head. The Respondents have alleged that the seven constables appointed were more qualified than the Appellant.
The Rules:
6. The present appeal pertains to the promotion of Constables to the post of Head Constables in the State of Haryana. The matters relating to the promotion of Constables to the rank of Head Constables are governed under the Punjab police Rules, 1934 as applicable in the State of Haryana.
6.1 The scheme of appointment and promotion is governed by the provisions which are as follows:
13.1 Promotion from one rank to another.
(3) For the purposes of regulating promotion amongst enrolled police officers six promotion lists-A, B, C, D, E and F will be maintained.
Lists A, B, C, and D shall be maintained in each district as prescribed in rules 13.6, 13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 and will regulate promotion to the selection grade of constables and to th
Promotion – Merits and accolades of candidates recommended for promotion vary from year to year on a comparative merit scale – Competitive environment differs from year to year – Scrutiny is dynamic ....
Retrospective appointments must ensure promotion eligibility and respect seniority as per judicial rulings.
Court directs committee to review constable-to-head constable promotions flawed by high merit-test quota, irregularity, stagnation, and sub-cadre discrimination, ensuring fair avenues despite state p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.