The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the seniority list of Constables and Head Constables should be maintained at the State level to avoid arbitrariness in promotions and ensure fair treatment of merited candidates.

P.B. Bajanthri, J.

1. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of order dated 24.07.1997 (Annexure P/1) by which his claim for fixation of seniority in the cadre of Head Constable has been rejected.

2. The petitioner joined service as a Constable with the Police Department, State of Haryana on 20.11.1962. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the State Vigilance Bureau on 14.12.1969. He was brought on list C-II on 06.10.1980, whereas 4th respondent was brought on list C-II on 18.08.1983. The petitioner was repatriated to his parent department from State Vigilance Bureau in the year 1986, then the petitioner came to know that 4th respondent who is junior to the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Head Constable w.e.f. 20.10.1983. Thus, the petitioner submitted representation to consider his name for promotion to the post of Head Constable from the date of 4th respondent's promotion while rectifying the seniority. Claim of the petitioner was rejected on 24.07.1997. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that official respondents have rejected the petitioner's claim of seniority and promotion on par with the 4th respondent, stating that seniority of Head Constables is being prepared at the District level and reckoned from the date of confirmation, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to claim seniority over and above his contemporaries serving in other Districts/Ranges. Whereas provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (applicable for State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as “Police Rules, 1934”) do not provide for District-wise preparation of seniority list of Constables or Head Constables as contended by the respondents. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on provisions of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 12.1, 12.2 (3) and 13.8 of the Police Rules, 1934. The aforesaid provisions do not stipulate that the seniority list of Constables and Head Constables are required to be prepared and published District-wise, therefore, rejection of the petitioner's claim that the petitioner is not entitled for seniority on par with his contemporaries is not tenable. It was further submitted that the selection and appointment is being made for the post of Constable State-wise only thereafter, selected candidates would be allotted to different districts and District head Superintendent of Police/Commissioner would be issuing appointment order. In other words, appointing authority in respect of Constable only to the extent of appointment and taking disciplinary proceedings. The power of assigning seniority or restricting seniority list to the District cadre is not forthcoming.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Jagat Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1995(1) CLJ (Service) 90 (Para 5) to contend that an appointee who is on probation would be deemed to have been confirmed on the post in question on completion of two years' probation. Therefore, delay in confirmation would not be hurdle for assigning seniority. Since the petitioner was on deputation to Vigilance Bureau during the period from 1969 to 1986, whatever the service benefit extended to juniors to the petitioner are required to be extended suo motu or automatically, during the deputation period 4th respondent has been promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 1983, therefore, petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Head Constable on par with 4th respondent w.e.f. 20.10.1983 while rectifying the seniority list of Constables. In view of these facts and circumstances, Annexure P/1 dated 24.07.1997 is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that seniority list of Constables and Head Constables is required to be prepared and published at the District l