IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202 CWP-23573-2013 (O & M)

Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 Sucha Singh and others ......Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondent(s)

Sr. No. Case No. Parties Name

2. CWP-8494-2014 Satpal vs. State of Punjab and others

3. CWP-8376-2014 Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others 4. CWP-8369-2014 Ranjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others

5. CWP-8440-2014 Jarnail Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP-23573-2013).

Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate, and Ms. Sakshi Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)

(in CWP Nos.8494, 8376, 8369 and 8440 of 2014).

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Satvik Bansal, Advocate, for Mr. Amitabh Tiwari, Advocate, for respondent Nos.7 and 8 (in CWP No. 8494 of 2014).

for respondent Nos.6 and 7 (in CWP Nos.8369 and 8440 of 2014).

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. By this common order, above noted writ petitions are hereby adjudicated as issues involved and prayer sought in all the petitions are common.

For the sake of convenience and with the consent of parties, the facts are borrowed from CWP-23573-2013.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of:

(i) Order dated 03.05.1990 (Annexure P-3) whereby respondent has equated the Condensed Course equal to Intermediate and Upper School Course under Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short 'PPR').

(ii) Officers Committee Report (Annexure P-4) whereby Committee has justified out of turn promotion of 19 Sports Persons.

3. Mr. G.S. Bal, Sr. Advocate and Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners submit that petitioners joined Punjab Police during 1973-79. They underwent Lower School Course (LSC), Intermediate School Course (ISC) and thereafter Upper School Course (USC). They were promoted after passing requisite course as prescribed by Chapter 13 of PPR. The private respondents joined service during subsequent years (1975-1982) and they did not undergo School Courses as prescribed under Chapter 13 of PPR still were promoted to higher ranks. They completed Condensed/Capsule Course which was of not more than 4 months. The Rules nowhere provide for Condensed or Capsule Course and respondent by way of Executive Instructions introduced these courses and permitted 19 Sports Persons to undergo these courses. It is settled proposition of law that Instructions cannot be contrary to Rules. The PPR are in the form of complete Code governing terms and conditions of service of police officials. The private respondents despite being Sports Persons were required to undergo LSC/ISC and USC. The respondent in exercise of power conferred by Rule 13.21 of PPR treated Condensed Course equivalent to ISC or USC. The respondent had no authority to treat Condensed Course equinimous to ISC or USC. The act of respondent was beyond the Rules. Division Bench of this Court in Dharambir Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2011 (1) RSJ 554 and in State of Punjab and others vs. Kirpal Singh Officiating Assistant, Sub-Inspector Government Railway Police and others, 1970 (6) RSJ 215 has clearly held that any Instruction which is contrary to PPR is invalid. The 19 persons who were permitted to undergo Condensed Course did not form class or category of persons, thus, Rule 13.21 could not be invoked. The respondent did not record reasons while invoking power under Rule 13.21 and this Court has clearly held in CWP- 10873-2012, LR/ASI Hardev Singh and other vs. State of Punjab and others that Director General of Police (DGP) is required to record reasons prior to exercising power under Rule 13.21 of PPR. The petitioners are also Sports Persons and they are getting lesser pension than private respondents.

4. Per contra, Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab submits that private respondents were Sports Persons