Vipan Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

There was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on 01.12.2021, 17.02.2022, 15.07.2022 and 02.03.2023, and even today also, position is the same.

¶14

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the Punjab Armed Police Seniority List (E) dated 18.09.2018 (Annexure P-4), and order dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure P-6), vide which the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the posts of Sub Inspectors has been rejected.

¶15

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners, who were working as Assistant Sub Inspectors in the Punjab Police, are seeking promotion to the posts of Sub Inspectors. The relevant service particulars of the petitioners are as under:-

¶16

Service Retired S.I./L.R. Retired S.I./L.R. Retired S.I./L.R. Details Amrik Singh Vipin Kumar Bachan Lal No.639/Gur; No.16/Gur; No.337/Gur; (Distt. (Armed Cadre) (Armed Cadre) Cadre)

¶17

VINAY 2026.07.08 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶18

-2-

¶19

CWP-9148-2021

¶20

DOB	15.07.56	01.10.58	01.04.57
Date of Joining	21.01.80	05.12.82	07.04.76
Caste Category	B.C. (Lubana)	G.C.	Ramdasia (S.C.)
Head Soldier (Revised)	23.08.89	23.08.89	20.11.91
List D-1 (Original)	01.10.07	01.10.07	01.04.08
List D-1 (Revised)	01.04.06	01.04.06	01.04.08
A.S.I. (Original)	15.10.09	15.10.09	01.04.10
A.S.I. (Revised)	02.08.06	02.08.06	20.07.09
Special Remarks	On 31.07.15 has been retired and this employee during service has not passed Uppers School Course.	On 30.01 been reti this e during has not Uppers Course.	.18 has red and mployee service passed School On 31.01.17 has been retired and this employee during service has not passed Uppers School Course.

¶21

A perusal of the aforesaid service particulars reveals that

¶22

all the petitioners have retired from service on attaining the age of their superannuation on 30.01.2018, 31.07.2015 and 31.01.2017 respectively. Prior to the institution of the present writ petition, the petitioners had filed CWP No.10454 of 2020 titled as 'Vipan Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others', claiming promotion to the posts of Sub Inspectors, which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 25.08.2020, which reads as under:-

¶23

“Counsel representing the respondents would pray that the present petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a decision qua legal notice dated 10.3.2020 (Annexure P-5)

¶24

Counsel for the petitioners, in reply, would concede to prayer made by counsel for the respondents.

¶25

In view of the above, without examining merits of

¶26

VINAY 2026.07.08 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶27

CWP-9148-2021

¶28

-3-

¶29

the allegations raised in the legal notice or/and in the petition, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to examine the legal notice (Annexure P-5) and take final decision in the matter within a period of three months from today.

¶30

Counsel representing the respondents would inform the competent authority in respect of the order passed by this Court.”

¶31

In pursuance to the said order, the competent authority considered the claim of the petitioners and rejected the same, vide order dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure P-6). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

¶32

Reply by way of affidavit of Parminder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Gurdaspur, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5, has been filed, wherein the following stand has been taken:-

¶33

“........In this regard as per the information received from Armed cadre Retired S.I./LR Amrik Singh No. 639/Gurdaspur and Retired LR/S.I. Vipan Kumar No 416/Gurdaspur has been retired from the Police department without passing Upper School Course. Therefore, the names of these employees have not been recorded in the promotion list-E according to Seniority List of Armed Cadre, due to which they have not been registered in the Seniority List of S.I. Rank. Apart from this retired S.I./LR Bachan LalNo. 337/Gurdaspur who on 31.01.2017 from the District Police has already retired without passing the Upper School Course, his name has not been recorded in the Seniority List of Sub Inspectors. It is relevant to mention here that during the Re-Casting to Seniority following criteria has been made that,

¶34

“The Assistant Sub Inspectors who have not passed the Upper School Course, which is mandatory for promotion in the rank of Sub Inspector (till their retirement/death) have not been considered for promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector as they do not full fill the basic criteria for promotion." Therefore, according to Punjab Police Rules Farm No. 13.10 due to non passing of Upper School Course of these employees and due to non registration in the Seniority List E, they cannot be registered in Seniority List......”

¶35

VINAY 2026.07.08 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶36

CWP-9148-2021

¶37

-4-

¶38

Learned State counsel submits that since the petitioners have not passed the Upper School Course in terms of Rule 13.10 of the Punjab Police Rules, therefore, they were not eligible for promotion to the posts of Sub Inspectors. He further submits that once the petitioners have already retired from service between the years 2015 and 2018, they cannot claim promotion after retirement. He further submits that even the earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioners after their retirement.

¶39

I have heard learned State counsel and perused the record. 9. Rule 13.10 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 reads as

¶40

under:-

¶41

“ 13.10 List ‘E’. Selection for promotion course for A.S.Is. Promotion to the rank of Sub- Inspectors. - (1) List ‘E’ shall be maintained for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector in two parts in Form No. 13.10 in each range. The names of Assistant Sub-Inspectors who qualify the promotion course for Assistant Sub- Inspectors at Police Training College shall be entered in Part-I of the said List ‘E’. While entering the names in this list they shall maintain their seniority inter-se. The names of the outstanding Assistant Sub-Inspectors who have not qualified the course mentioned above, but otherwise are of exceptional merit and are considered suitable, may, with the approval of the Inspector-General of Police, be entered in Part-II of List ‘E’ provided they are not below the age of forty-five years:

¶42

Provided further that not more than ten per cent of the posts of Sub- Inspectors (inclusive of temporary and permanent posts) shall not any time contain more than two per cent of cadre strength of the Sub-Inspectors in the range.

¶43

(2) No Assistant Sub-Inspector shall be eligible for admission to the promotion course of Assistant SubInspector at the Police Training College, unless -

¶44

(i) he has been confirmed as Assistant SubInspector;

¶45

(ii) he is below forty-five years on the date of commencement of the next course; and

¶46

VINAY 2026.07.08 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶47

CWP-9148-2021

¶48

-5-

¶49

(iii) he, in the case of promotee has completed four years’ service after passing the promotion course for Head Constables and in the case of direct recruit has completed five years of service after passing Assistant Sub- Inspectors initial course.

¶50

(3) Promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector shall be made strictly in accordance with the seniority on List ‘E’:

¶51

Provided that the seniority may be ignored in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Deputy Inspector- General and with the approval of the Inspector-General of Police.”

¶52

The above reproduced rule contemplates that list 'E' shall

¶53

be maintained for promotion to the rank of Sub Inspectors in two parts, in Form No.13.10, in each range. Part-I of list 'E' comprises the names of Assistant Sub Inspectors who have successfully qualified the promotion course at police training college. Part-II, on the other hand, is intended to include the names of outstanding Assistant Sub Inspectors, who despite having not qualified the course, possess exceptional merit and are otherwise considered suitable for promotion, subject to the approval of the Inspector General of Police, provided they are not below the age of 45 years. The rule further stipulates that not more than 10% of the posts of Sub Inspectors (inclusive of temporary and permanent posts) shall not at any time contain more than 2% of cadre strength of the Sub Inspectors in the range.

¶54

In the present case, the petitioners have not passed the Upper School Course and, consequently, their names could not have been entered in the Part-I of list 'E'. Furthermore, it is not the case of the petitioners that their names are entitled to be entered in Part-II of list 'E', which is exclusively maintained of the ASIs possessing exceptional merit. Thus, having failed to establish their eligibility under either

¶55

VINAY 2026.07.08 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶56

CWP-9148-2021

¶57

-6-

¶58

category contemplated under the Rule, the petitioners cannot claim any legal or vested right to promotion. Even otherwise, both the earlier writ petition and the present writ petition have been preferred by the petitioners much after they had already attained the age of their superannuation. In such circumstances, no enforceable right survives in their favour so as to warrant the grant of any relief.

¶59

Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby

¶60

dismissed.

¶61

06.07.2026 Vinay		(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶62

VINAY 2026.07.08 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Vipan Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipan Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amardeep Singh Nagra Vs State of Punjab

Rajbinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Prabhjot Singh Shergill Alias Prabhjot Singh Vs the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.

Jatinder Kaur and Others Vs Punjab State Cooperative Bank, Chandigarh and Others

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Hari Shanker Vs State of Punjab and Others