ORDER

1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ appeals were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Appeal No. 1157 / 2019 are narrated hereunder.

2. The present Writ Appeal is arising out of the common order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No. 10404/2018, 10405/2018 and 10428/2018.

3. Facts of the case reveal that the respondent in the present appeal, who was the petitioner, has filed a Writ Petition being aggrieved by order dated 2.5.2018 by which his promotion was cancelled. He was appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1994 and was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 2011. In the year 2015 he was considered for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and a fitness list was published for promotion. His name was included in the fitness list and he was promoted finally by order dated 17.7.2015. The another important aspect of the case is that based upon the representations of two Head Constables namely; Rajesh Handa and Suresh Kushwaha dated 19.7.2016 the promotion order of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 2.5.2018. In the representations Rajesh Handa and Suresh Kushwaha who were also the Constables, stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable and he had submitted his joining in the night i.e. on 2.12.2011 at 12:00 O’clock and, therefore, he has not completed 3 years of service as Head Constable. The appointing authority taking into account the aforesaid representations, has passed an order cancelling the promotion of the petitioner after almost three years.

4. The learned Single Judge in paragraphs No. 8 to 12 has held as under:

8. Shri Sharan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that cancellation of promotion and reduction in rank is a major punishment which cannot be done in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The respondents have cancelled the promotion of the petitioners without giving any opportunity of hearing, which is not permissible, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. The petitioners never misrepresented for obtaining the promotion. Provisions of Rules of 2012 came into force w.e.f. 14.8.2012 are not applicable to the case of the petitioners having applicable prospectively and not retrospectively.

9. On the other hand, Shri Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents, urged that the petitioners were wrongly promoted to the post of ASI as they did not complete 3 years’ service as Head Constable, therefore, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given as the facts are not in dispute. Promotion given to undeserving incumbent can be set aside at any stage of service career. Promotions to the post of ASI were wrongly given to the petitioners and such cancellation of promotion is not a punishment, therefore, no opportunity of hearing was required. Hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

10. Respondents issued the fitness list in the year 2015 of eligible Head Constables for promotion to the post of ASI, in which, name of petitioners was there. The petitioners were promotion to the post of Head Constable w.e.f. 2.12.2011. According to the respondents, they joined their service on the post of Head Constable after 12 ‘O’ clock in the night, therefore, they are not eligible for promotion as they did not complete actual 3 years as Head Constable w.e.f. 1.1.2015. Respondents have placed reliance over the Rules of 2012 which came into force on 14.8.2012. As per Schedule ‘A’ appended to the Rules of 2012, three years’ complete service as on 1st January of the year of promotion is required for promotion from the post of Head Constable to the post of ASI. Relevant part of Sche