Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1880 (PNJ)

Khushpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-10-18

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, SHAM SUNDER

body2007
Judgment J.S.Khehar, J. 1. Although an indication was given to the learned counsel for the petitioners on the first date of hearing when the matter came up on 1 1.10.2007 that the Court is of the impression that rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , being relied upon by the petitioners had been declared unconstitutional and accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners sought time so as to enable him to further examine the controversy raised in the instant writ petition. 2. He again pressed his claim on the adjourned date of hearing 16.10.2007. Once again, an adjournment was granted to the petitioner on the same cause and the matter whereafter was listed for further consideration today. 3. Today again, learned counsel for the petitioners pressed his claim relying on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Secretary to the govt. and another v. M. Senthil Kumar, 2005(2) SLR 795. Today our petition was invited to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment. The paragraphs relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are being extracted hereunder : "6. We find that there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the policy providing for 10% special quota to the children/wards of serving/retired/deceased personnel of police and like forces. The relevant portion of the Government Order dated 10.9.2001 containing the policy is as follows : "The Government also direct that 10% quota be provided for dependents of medically invalidated police personnel so as to boost up the morale and strengthen the loyalty of the force. In case, it is not possible to fill up the sports quota of 10% the Government permit the filling up of the gap by the dependents of the serving personnel so that the total percentage does not exceed 20%." 7. Subsequently, on 26.3.2002 the aforesaid Government Order was amended and the benefit was extended to the children/wards/dependents of the ministerial staff of the police department. The application before the Tribunal was disposed of primarily on the ground that the applicant was not suitable for selection. There was only one additional observation which reads as under :- "He is not entitled for any preferential treatment also". 8. Therefore, there was no express view expressed regarding the validity of the policy decision by the Tribunal as wrongly concluded by the High Court. There was only one additional observation which reads as under :- "He is not entitled for any preferential treatment also". 8. Therefore, there was no express view expressed regarding the validity of the policy decision by the Tribunal as wrongly concluded by the High Court. Obviously, the High Court could not have made out a case for adjudication which was not even part of the pleadings. In V.K. Majotra v. Union of India, 2003(8) SCC 40 : 2003(3) SLR 471 (SC) this Court observed as under : "....... Counsel for the parties are right in submitting that the point on which the writ petition has been disposed of was not raised by the parties in their pleadings. The parties were not at issue on the point decided by the High Court ....." In State of Maharashtra v. Jalgaon Municipal Council. 2003(9) SCC 731, this Court observed as under : "........ In the absence of any challenge having been laid, the constitutional validity of the amendment cannot be gone into...." It is not possible for us to accept, on the basis of the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the controversy in issue came to be adjudicated upon by the Apex Court in M. Senthil Kumars case (supra). 4 During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners also handed over to us a photocopy of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Jagtar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2006(3) SLR 781 although his reliance was not on this judgment but on M. Senthil Kumars case (supra). In paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgement, rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (which is subject matter of reliance at the hands of the petitioners for the relief sought in this case) was specifically dealt with on the basis of an earlier decision rendered by the Apex Court in Yogender Pal Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 1987(1) SLR 379, wherein the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the constitutional validity of rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , whereupon the same was held to be unconstitutional. 5. 5. From the facts narrated in the foregoing paragraphs, it is apparent that the petitioners have pressed the relief sought by the petitioners under rule 12.14 (3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 thrice over, whilst they were aware of the fact that a Division Bench of this Court in Jagtar Singhs case (supra) and the Apex Court in Yogender Pal Singhs case (supra) had to occasion to consider the constitutional validity of rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and that the same was declared unconstitutional. 6. In view of the above, we are satisfied that no relief can be granted to the petitioners on the basis of rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , which has been declared as unconstitutional and has been struck down. So as to prevent learned counsel from raising issues, which has been adjudicated upon earlier through frivolous petitions whereby precious Court time is wasted, we are satisfied that costs deserve to be imposed on the petitioners. This is necessary specially when the leaned counsel for the petitioners had been informed on the first date of hearing about the Courts impression that the rule under reference had been declared unconstitutional and learned counsel was successful in tracing the decisions referred to above (wherein the rule under reference had been declared unconstitutional) and yet the instant matter was pressed thrice over. Accordingly costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- are imposed on the petitioners. File aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the petitioners with the Member Secretary,Legal Service Authority, Punjab, within a period of one month from today and a receipt thereof shall be placed on the record of this case within the aforesaid period. In case the aforesaid receipt is not placed on the record of this case, the main case shall be re-listed for motion hearing by the Registry of this Court. Petition dismissed.