The Special Appeal against the Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition challenging a promotional order was treated as lacking merit. The Single Judge noted the lack of impleaded promoted persons and the appellants' appointment in a different cadre.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1520 of 2011
Appellant :- Ratan Pal Singh A.S.I. And Anr. Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Appellant :- D.K. Singh,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Umesh Vats,Vijay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The case is called out in the revised list.
No one is present on behalf of the appellants.
We have heard learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned judgment.
This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No.43016 of 2008.
It appears that the appellants-petitioners had filed Writ A No.43016 of 2008 before this Court challenging the promotional order dated 30.04.2008 whereby 38 Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) of Police Headquarter cadre were promoted on ad hoc basis as Sub Inspector (Ministerial). The claim set up by the learned counsel for the appellantspetitioners in the writ petition was that the promotion should have been given to the appellants-petitioners with effect from 06.09.1985 and a prayer was made for directing the respondents not to implement the order dated 30.04.2008. The learned Single Judge after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition. The relevant extract of the order passed by the learned Single Judge containing reasons for dismissing the writ petition is being reproduced as under:-
"While challenging the order dated 30.04.2008 the persons who have been promoted none of them have been impleaded as respondents and in their absence it is well settled that no order adverse to their interest can be passed.
Besides, it is also not disputed that all these persons belong to Police Head Quarter cadre. The respondents have clarified in para 4 of the counter affidavit that vide Government Order dated 09.02.1976 Ministerial cadre of Police department was divided in five cadres as under:
"(i) U.P. Police Head Quarter Cadre.
(ii) Crime Investigation Department Cadre.
(iii) Intelligence Department Cadre.
(iv) Government Railway Police Cadre.
(v) District Police Cadre."
The petitioners were selected as Constable (Ministerial) for District Police cadre as is evident from the select list dated 11.03.1977 which the petitioners have filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The incumbents who were selected as Constable (Ministerial) for District Police Force cadre starts at Serial No. 73 and onwards and the name of petitioners find mention at Serial Noo. 163 and 217. It is thus evident that the petitioners from the very inception knew that they have been selected and appointed as Constable (Ministerial) in District Police Force cadre which is a different cadre to the Police Headquarter cadre.
That being so, promotion made in different cadre will not give any cause of action for claiming promotion unless the petitioners can show that in their cadre also some persons junior to them have been promoted ignoring the claim of petitioners.
The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."
We do not find any reason to take a view different from that taken by the learned Single Judge.
This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 18.11.2019 Ravi Kant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the special appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition regarding police promotion has merit?
Ratan Pal Singh A.S.I. And Anr.
State of U.P. and Others
Bala Krishna Narayana
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
