Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Maan Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Another – Respondents
CWPOA No. 3382 of 2019
Decided On : 02-01-2023
Power of relaxation – Promotion - Grievance of petitioner is that his juniors Inspectors with similar qualifications and with relaxation in educational qualifications were promoted as DSPs on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 9.7.1999, whereas petitioner was denied benefit of ad-hoc promotion as DSP till 2.11.2000 without any basis - Merely because the relaxation in case of petitioner was given from a later date that too under misconception of fact about his educational qualification, cannot be held sufficient to discriminate the petitioner. (Para 18).
Finding of the Court:
Contention of petitioner that his ad-hoc promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police was delayed without any basis also deserves to be upheld – Ad-hoc promotions were made on basis of seniority, minimum educational qualification for post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was Graduation, relaxation was given in cases of many Inspectors, who were Matriculate – Petitioner was also in same category – Juniors of petitioner were promoted as DSPs on ad-hoc basis, whereas petitioner was denied benefit of ad-hoc promotion as DSP – Petitioner had passed the matriculation in 1998 and had all other qualifications to be promoted as DSP – In such view of matter, merely because relaxation in case of petitioner was given from a later date that too under misconception of fact about his educational qualification, cannot be held sufficient to discriminate petitioner.
Results: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:
2. The case of the petitioner in nut-shell is that he was appointed as Constable in Himachal Pradesh Police on 30.10.1974. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1981. He qualified the Intermediate Course and was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 1986. Petitioner was further promoted as Sub-Inspector in the year 1990 and as Inspector on 22.8.1995. He was confirmed as Inspector w.e.f. 30.3.1998.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his juniors Inspectors with similar qualifications and with relaxation in educational qualifications were promoted as DSPs on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 9.7.1999, whereas petitioner was denied the benefit of ad-hoc promotion as DSP till 2.11.2000 without any basis.
4. Further objection of the petitioner is that in DPC held on 18.4.2006 for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on regular basis, again the juniors of the petitioner were promoted by ignoring him. Petitioner made various representations but justice was not imparted to him
5. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that representations of petitioner remained undecided with the observation to await the decision in CWP No. 3174 of 2012 as the respondents had clearly identified the case of petitioner to be similar to the case of petitioner in CWP No. 3174 of 2012.
6. In rejoinder, the petitioner clarified that during the pendency of instant petition, CWP No. 3174 of 2012 was decided by this Court on 8.4.2013 and the issue was decided in favour of the petitioner in that case. Petitioner further placed on record a copy of order dated 1.7.2014, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby all consequential benefits were granted to the petitioner in CWP No. 3174 of 2012.
7. Respondents filed their reply. It is evident from the reply of respondents that the factual position with respect to the date of initial appointment of petitioner, his further promotions and seniority position in the rank of Inspector was not denied. It has also not been denied that the juniors to the petitioner were promoted firstly on ad-hoc basis and then on regular basis before petitioner. The only visible defence of the respondents is that the petitioner had already received the benefit of scheduled caste category in the matter of promotion and as such, he could not again get the benefit to be promoted on the basis of jumped up seniority, till the time the representation of scheduled caste (reserved) category fell short by the prescribed percentage of reservation.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
9. Respondents have not disputed the factual aspect that the representations of the petitioner were not finally decided and were kept pending awaiting the decision in CWP No. 3174 of 2012. It will be relevant to reproduce the contents of note sheets of the department from N-352 and N-353, as under:
“If a candidate has taken a benefit of promotion on account of reservation at any stage and has gained seniority above the senior general candidate in the promoted post, su
Principle of accelerated/jump up seniority would not be applicable and petitioner was required to be considered as per seniority list of Inspectors for induction into H.P.P. Services.
Ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority; only regular promotions from statutory provisions grant legitimate standing in seniority lists.
Ad-hoc promotions do not entitle officers to claim seniority from the date of ad-hoc promotion, and seniority should be based on actual regular promotion as per the statutory provisions.
Promotion cannot be denied solely based on the number of past punishments without considering their nature and timing, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.
When juniors granted ad hoc promotion, seniors entitled to consideration despite technical eligibility issues, given long ad hoc service against vacancies and committee fitness; preliminary objection....
The period of continuous officiation after appointment has to be taken into account for determining seniority, and where an appointment was made by way of a stopgap arrangement, the experience on suc....
The court ruled that individual acts of bravery warrant recognition and promotion, overriding blanket policies that deny seniority based on group promotions.
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
