Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1464 (PNJ)

Vinod Kumari v. State of Haryana

2006-04-04

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, P.S.PATWALIA

body2006
JUDGMENT J.S. KHEHAR, J. (ORAL) 1. A large number of writ petitions have come up before us, wherein, officials of the Police Department have been transferred. The contention at the hands of the petitioners in all these cases was, that they had been transferred beyond the cadre to which they belong. The case projected on behalf of the Constables and Head Constables was, that their cadre is limited to the police district, and their transfer beyond the police district is impermissible in law. Likewise, the case set up on behalf of the Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors was, that their cadre is at the range level, and their transfer beyond the range is in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Police Rules). Since a common question of law arises for consideration in all these cases, we consider it just and appropriate to pass a common order disposing of the entire bunch of cases, comprising of the following writ petitions:- “Civil Writ Petition Nos.20421 of 2005, 31 of 2006, 66 of 2006, 223 of 2006, 342 of 2006, 435 of 2006, 656 of 2006, 693 of 2006, 980 of 2006, 1035 of 2006, 1062 of 2006, 1212 of 2006, 1346 of 2006, 1356 of 2006, 1489 of 2006, 1512 of 2006, 1694 of 2006, 2130 of 2006, 2181 of 2006, 2236 of 2006, 2765 of 2006, 2827 of 2006, 3033 of 2006, 3167 of 2006, 3224 of 2006, 3279 of 2006, 4230 of 2006, 4242 of 2006, 4931 of 2006, 4962 of 2006, 4965 of 2006, 4977 of 2006, 5050 of 2006 and 5209 of 2006.” 2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to paragraph 6 of the joint written statement (on merits) filed on behalf of the official respondents, wherein, it was alleged, that the claim raised by the petitioners was conceded. Paragraph 6 of the joint written statement (on merits) filed on behalf of the respondents is, accordingly, being extracted hereunder:- “That there is no denying the fact that the cadre of Constables/EHC/HC is being maintained at district level and above that rank i.e. Assistant Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector at Range level. Paragraph 6 of the joint written statement (on merits) filed on behalf of the respondents is, accordingly, being extracted hereunder:- “That there is no denying the fact that the cadre of Constables/EHC/HC is being maintained at district level and above that rank i.e. Assistant Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector at Range level. The interest of public is to be seen and not that of petty interest of particular employee.” Undoubtedly, it is acknowledged in paragraph 6, extracted above, that the cadre of Constables/Exemptee Head Constables/Head Constables, is maintained at the district level and the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors, is maintained at the range level. It is, therefore apparent, that the written statement acknowledges the legal position sought to be substantiated on behalf of the petitioners. Despite the aforesaid clear and categoric acknowledgement in paragraph 6 of the written statement (on merits), we have also satisfied ourselves after perusing the Police Rules, that the position depicted in paragraph 6 (on merits) in the written statement, emerges from the provisions of the Police Rules. It would be relevant to mention, that Rules 13.7 to 13.9 of the Police Rules require the maintenance of lists for promotion to the posts of Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors at the level of the Superintendent of Police. Reading the aforesaid rules with the assertions of the petitioners, that a Superintendent of Police is incharge at the district level, which position is not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are satisfied, that atleast for the posts of Constables and Head Constables, it can be clearly concluded, that the cadre is at the police district level. 3. Likewise, a perusal of Rule 13.10 of the Police Rules reveal, that the list for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector is maintained by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It is also asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that a Deputy Inspector General of Police is incharge at the range level. This factual position is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It can, therefore, be clearly concluded while reading with the averments made in paragraph 6 (on merits) of the written statement, extracted above, that the cadre of the posts of Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors, is maintained at the range level. 4. This factual position is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It can, therefore, be clearly concluded while reading with the averments made in paragraph 6 (on merits) of the written statement, extracted above, that the cadre of the posts of Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors, is maintained at the range level. 4. The aforesaid position stands affirmed independently by Rule 12.1(4) of the Police Rules, wherein, it is asserted, that Constables and Head Constables in each district shall be borne on the district rolls and shall receive district constabulary numbers, and further, that Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors shall be borne on the range rolls and shall receive range constabulary numbers. Thus viewed, we are satisfied, that the Police Rules clearly define the cadre of Constables and Head Constables at the police district level, and of Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors at the range level. Since in this bunch of cases, Constables, Head Constables and Exemptee Head Constables have been transferred beyond the police district level, and Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors have been transferred beyond the range level, we are satisfied, that the impugned orders of transfer are not sustainable in law. The same are, accordingly, hereby set aside. 5. Writ petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.