The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition challenging the observer's order declining the petitioner's promotion to DSP. The court held that promotion was by merit-cum-seniority and the petitioner failed to clear the benchmark.
The writ petition was dismissed against the order of the lower authority declining promotion.
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.
C.W.P. No.19781 of 2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.19781 of 2001
Date of Decision: 20.04.2012
Harjinderpal Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 02.11.2001 (Annexure P-10), whereby the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) on the basis of his service record was declined.
Petitioner was initially recruited as Constable on 24.08.1965 in 36th Battalion, PAP, Jallandhar. He was promoted as Head Constable on 01.08.1996; as ASI on 06.09.1982; as SI on 03.09.1989 and as Inspector on 14.07.1993.
The name of the petitioner appears at Sr.No.582 in the seniority list of Inspectors, whereas the names of the private respondents appear in the merit list lower than the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that
C.W.P. No.19781 of 2001
2
the said private respondents have been promoted to the post of DSP vide order dated 18.05.2001 (Annexure P-7), whereas the petitioner has been ignored though no adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner except for the period from 14.08.1995 to 17.02.1996. It is also pointed out that such remarks were wrongly recorded and that on a representation, such remarks were considered as advisory vide order dated 04.02.1998 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner has also made reference to circular dated 29.12.2000, wherein the instructions have been issued in the matter of promotion to the various ranks including that of DSPs.
In the circular dated 29.12.2000 (Annexure P-6), the State has issued departmental instructions for setting up of Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the cases of promotion to Class-I and Class-II posts and to evaluate Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) by granting 4 marks for 'Outstanding'; 3 marks for 'Very Good'; 2 marks for 'Good' and 1 mark for 'Average'. It was circulated that where the promotion is to be made to the posts covered by the Punjab Services (Appointment by Promotion) Rules, 1962 or where there is specific provision in the Service Rules regarding promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, the procedure prescribed shall be meticulously adhered to by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
The promotion to the post of DSP is governed by by Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959. Rule 6(2) of the said Rules contemplates that promotion from Inspectors brought on list 'G', will be a list of officers considered fit for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Such list is to be prepared by Government in consultation with the
C.W.P. No.19781 of 2001
3
Commission. There is no specific condition for promotion on the basis of merit in the said Rules. Therefore, the Punjab Services (Appointment by Promotion) Rules, 1962 would be applicable as the post of DSP ranks at Sr.No.30 of the Schedule appended to the said Rules. Rule 3 of the Punjab Services (Appointment by Promotion) Rules, 1962 reads as under:
In terms of Rule 3, the promotion to the post of DSP is required
to be made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and such merit-cumseniority is to be determined in terms of the circular dated 29.12.2000 (Annexure P-6). In such determination of process, the petitioner has not been promoted to the post of DSP.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & others (2008) 8 SCC 725 to contend that the petitioner has not been communicated 'Good' reports, whereas such reports have the adverse affect, as the petitioner has not been able to cross the minimum bench-mark on account of such reports.
We do not find any merit in the said argument. The circular dated 29.12.2000 (Annexure P-6) does not treat the 'Good' report as a bar for crossing the bench-mark. In the circular dated 29.12.2000 (Annexure P- 6), each of the entry in the ACR has to be credited. The other candidates
C.W.P. No.19781 of 2001
4
have got more marks in the ACR than the petitioner. The judgment relied upon is of no help to the petitioner. In the said case, the bench-mark was to possess continuously 'very good' reports for the last five years. There is no such condition. Each of the report is to be taken into consideration. But the petitioner has not been found to be more meritorious than the private respondents.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) 20.04.2012 JUDGE Vimal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion to DSP as of right on the basis of seniority.
Whether the petitioner satisfied the merit-cum-seniority benchmark under the applicable service rules.
Whether non-communication of 'Good' reports operated as a bar to promotion under the departmental circular.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dev Dutt Vs. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶29
Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & others (2008) 8 SCC 725 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Harjinderpal Singh
The State of Punjab
Hemant Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
