IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Kesar Singh and others ….Petitioners vs.

State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Manu K.Bhandari, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Sawhni, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition was filed by ten persons. Mr. Manu K.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that petitioner No.1-Kesar Singh, petitioner No. 6-Jasvir Singh and petitioner No.

10- Ram Sarup are contesting the matter.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 11.09.1997 whereby they were ordered to be reverted to the post of Constable.

3. The petitioners joined Punjab Police as Constables. On account of exemplary work during terrorism, they were brought on List C-II. They were further promoted as Head Constable on the basis of their name in List C-II. On account of judgment dated 21.04.1998 of this Court passed in CWP No. 13788 of 1997, titled as “Swaran Singh vs. State of Punjab and others”, they came to be reverted to their original substantive rank i.e. Constable by impugned order dated 11.09.1997. They are challenging order of their reversion through instant petition. Notice of motion was issued, however, there was no stay in their favour, thus, they were actually reverted. Jasvir Singh was subsequently promoted as Head Constable on 31.07.2015 and retired as Assistant Sub Inspector (Local Rank) on 31.10.2023. Ram Sarup was promoted as Head Constable on 25.06.2019 and he retired as Assistant Sub Inspector (Local Rank) on 31.07.2024. Kesar Singh was removed from C-II List and brought to C-I. He was promoted as Head Constable as per seniority in List C-I.

4. Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate submits that during the pendency of instant petition, the respondent promoted many C-II List candidates as Head Constables in exercise of power conferred by Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short “1934 Rules”). The respondent vide impugned order dated 23.12.2016 has decided to protect promotion of 393 employees who were promoted out of turn. The respondent on the one hand reverted the petitioners on the ground that they were promoted in excess of 10% quota and on the other has protected 393 employees who were also promoted in excess of 10% quota and 2-3 of them were reverted along with petitioners. The discrimination is writ large. If the rank of 393 employees can be protected, there is no reason to discriminate petitioners. The respondent has also protected rank of 207 Sportspersons working with District Police and 295 employees working with Punjab Armed Police. In this way, the respondent as per its choice has protected rank of Sportspersons by creating Dying Cadre and further protected rank of 393 employees. The State has created Dying Cadre with respect to 393 persons. There was no reason to deny protection to petitioners. There is one Constable namely Sukhwinder Singh who was reverted to the post of Constable alongwith petitioners. His rank is protected by order dated 23.12.2016.

5. Per contra, Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab submits that petitioners at the first instance were claiming parity with Sportspersons whose rank was protected by way of creating Dying Cadre. The decision of State Government to create Dying Cadre has not been set aside by any Court. The State Government has decided to protect rank of 393 employees, however, till date said order has not been implemented and matter is pending before Home Department. He further submits that out of 393 employees whose rank is going to be protected by order dated 23.12.2016 are those officials who were promoted out of turn, however, in exercise of power conferred by Rule 13.21 of PPR. They were also in excess of 10% quota, thus, were liable to be reverted. They were never actually reverted and State Gover