Dismissed¶24

Kamaljit Singh v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2025CWP/15677/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 47 PWD Act 1995 protection in matters of promotion; locomotor disability during service; Punjab Police SPO versus Constable; no feeder cadre post from SPO to Constable; direct recruitment of Constables; temporary post of SPO; Section 17 Punjab Police Act 1861; Punjab Police Rules; Class-IV post offered; post of PWD protected; writ petition dismissed (CWP-15677-2002, decided 15.09.2025).

What did the court decide?

Post of Constable is not a promotional post and post of SPO is not a feeder cadre post; there is always direct recruitment of Constables and SPO is a temporary post, so the petitioner cannot claim the post of Constable as a matter of right under Section 47 of the 1995 Act. ¶23

Kamaljit Singh Vs State of Pb. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who suffered locomotor disability during service as an SPO and could not clear the physical test, is entitled under Section 47 of the 1995 Act to be promoted/appointed as Constable notwithstanding the absence of a promotional channel from SPO to Constable.

¶19

Court's answer

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner continued to work as SPO and his post was protected despite being a person with disability, there was compliance of the 1995 Act on the part of the respondents.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Single Bench, Jagmohan Bansal, J.), CWP-15677-2002 (O&M), decided 15.09.2025 — Service law / Disability rights. The petitioner, appointed Special Police Officer (SPO) in Punjab Police on 27.08.1992, suffered locomotor disability on duty (03.01.1997) and was refused appointment as Constable for failing the physical test; he sought promotion as Constable invoking Section 47 of the Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. HELD: Section 47 protects a disabled employee against denial of promotion, but presupposes that the higher post is a promotional post fed by the employee's cadre. There is no rule in the Punjab Police Rules making SPO a feeder cadre post for Constable; Constables are always directly recruited, and SPOs are temporary appointees under Section 17 of the Punjab Police Act, 1861 to deal with emergent situations. The petitioner therefore could not claim the post of Constable as a matter of right under Section 47 of the 1995 Act; his existing SPO post stood protected despite his being a person with disability, which amounted to compliance with the 1995 Act. Writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

342 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP-15677-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision:15.09.2025

Kamaljit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶10

Present:Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶11

¶12

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 29.01.2002 (Annexure P- 8) and direction to respondents to promote him as Constable because he has suffered locomotor injury during service.

¶14

The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Special Police Officer (in short ‘SPO’) on 27.08.1992. He suffered locomotor disability on 03.01.1997 while on duty. The respondent appointed many SPOs as Constable, however, his claim was denied as he failed to qualify physical test. He could not clear physical test due to locomotor disability. He in terms of Section 47 of Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short ‘1995 Act’) is entitled to protection of service. He filed CWP No.14098 of 2001 before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to respondent to decide his representation. The respondent vide order dated 09.01.2002 offered him Class-IV Post. The respondent vide order dated 29.01.2002 rejected his request to the effect that he should be protected in terms of 1995 Act.

¶15

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that as per

¶16

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.09.16 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP-15677-2002 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

Section 47 of 1995 Act, the respondent being a non-exempted establishment was bound to promote him as Constable. He could not be denied promotion as Constable.

¶20

Learned State counsel submits that post of Constable is not a promotional post. The petitioner was supposed to clear physical test for the post of Constable. On account of his injury as SPO, he was offered alternative post.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

¶22

During the course of hearing, learned counsel representing the petitioner confirmed that petitioner continued to work with respondent as SPO.

¶23

There is no rule in PPR which provides that SPO is a feeder cadre post and Constable is a promotional post. There is always direct recruitment of Constables. Post of SPO is a temporary post. SPOs are appointed under Section 17 of Punjab Police Act, 1861 to deal with emergent situation. Section 47 of 1995 Act is applicable where a person suffering from disability is entitled to promotion. On account of disability, he cannot be denied promotion. As post of Constable is not a promotional post and post of SPO is not a feeder cadre post, the petitioner cannot claim post of Constable as a matter of right under Section 47 of 1995 Act. As confirmed by him, his post was protected despite being PWD, thus, there was compliance of 1995 Act on the part of respondents.

¶24