The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions should be based on merit and not be arbitrary or discriminatory.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. Reply by way of affidavit dated 10.01.2024 of Naresh Kumar Dogra, P.P.S., Assistant Inspector General of Police, PAP office of Additional Director General of Police, State Armed Police, Punjab, Jalandhar filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in CM-9962-CWP-2023 is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

2. Reply by way of short affidavit dated 10.01.2024 of Suba Singh, P.P.S., Assistant Inspector General of Police, PAP office of Additional Director General of Police, State Armed Police, Punjab Jalandhar filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in CM-20606-CWP-2023 is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

3. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 09.04.2019 (Annexure P-19) whereby their claim for promotion w.e.f. 05.12.2003 has been declined.

4. From the perusal of record, it comes out that petitioners belong to sportsmen category. The respondent promoted various police officials who were appointed against post for sportsmen. The promotion of the officials belonging to sportsman category was made in excess of 10% quota. This Court in Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 13788 of 1997 ordered to revert all the police officials who were promoted in excess of 10% quota. The respondent-State instead of reverting the police officials issued different notifications and in 2006 came out with a policy concluding that all the reverted officials would hold same posts w.e.f. 05.12.2003 as they were holding prior to reversion either on adhoc or regular basis. 7 officers (sportsmen) submitted their representation in 2008 claiming that they have been wrongly appointed on the post of Head Constable or ASI whereas they should be appointed on the post of ASI or SI respectively. The respondent accepted claim of the officials, however, 02 persons were not extended benefit because at that point of time, 5 posts were lying vacant. The DGP, Punjab vide communication dated 15.09.2009 requested the State Government to create 02 posts of Sub Inspectors for the sportsmen who could not be promoted out of aforesaid 7 persons. There was further representation of 04 persons claiming the same benefit. CWP No.10060 of 2011 came to be filed by aforesaid 04 persons claiming promotion w.e.f. 05.12.2003. This Court vide order dated 21.02.2013 upheld the claim of aforesaid 04 persons. The State filed LPA before a Division Bench of this Court which came to be dismissed. Under these circumstances, the respondent promoted 04 persons w.e.f. 05.12.2003 though at the time of reversion they were not holding promotional post on adhoc or regular basis. This promotion gave impetus to other officials to make representation seeking promotion w.e.f. 05.12.2003. In two lots, 31 police officials made representations claiming parity with the 04 aforesaid officials. The respondent extended benefit of promotion to 31 police officials w.e.f. 05.12.2003.

5. The petitioners, in the line of others, made representation which was followed by CWP No.14041 of 2018 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 30.05.2018. This Court directed the respondents to consider claim of the petitioners therein and pass a speaking order. The respondent constituted different committees which submitted their reports. On the basis of reports received from different quarters, the impugned order came to be passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab. The respondent in the impugned order has noted that promotion to 04 officials was granted on account of order passed by this Court whereas they were neither holding promotional post on adhoc or regular basis which has led to confusion and multiple litigation.

6. The claim of the petitioner is that 25 officials who were juniors to the petitioners have been promoted and claim of the petitioners has been arbitrarily and wrongly rejec