Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 232 (HP)

ARJUN SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2007-06-14

M.R.VERMA, VIJAY PAL SINGH

body2007
JUDGEMENT M.R. Verma, J. (Retd.) Chairman.:- The applicant herein has claimed the relief that the respondents No.1 to 4 may be directed to order promotion of the applicant as Head Constable w.e.f. 24.6.1991 and place him above responder No.5 to 7 in seniority. 2. The case of the applicant as made out in the original application is that he joined as Constable in H.P. Police Department in 1951 and was confirmed such in the year 1955. He was promoted as LHC 4 or 5 years before the filing this original application. At the time of filing this original application he had attain the age of 54 years. In the Police Department 10% quota for promotion as he constable is reserved for those constables who did not undergo lower school course and promotion against so reserved quota has to be made on the basis seniority tempered with merit. The respondents, however, ordered promotions respondents No.5 to 7 as Head Constables respectively w.e.f. 20.6.1991, 7.12.1992 and 2.6.1993 and ignored the applicant though he was senior in service to them and this was done without serving any show cause notice on the applies Thus, according to the applicant to lost seniority and chances of promotion as result of penal circumstances1, therefore, Article 311 of the Constitution attracted and the promotions of respondents No. 5 to 7 are rendered with the jurisdiction, illegal and against PPR 13-1 and other relevant provisions of Punjab Police Rules as applicable to the Himachal Pradesh. About his own merits, the case of the applicant is that his service record is unblemished and he was award 13 commendation certificates some of which were with cash rewards, thereto he deserved to be considered and promoted in preference to his juniors i respondents No.5 to 7, hence this original application. 3. The respondents 5 to 7 are exparte whereas the respondents No.1 to contested the claim of the applicant. In the reply filed by them while admitting t age, dates of appointment, confirmation and promotion of the applicant as LHC it claimed that the applicant had earned 13 commendation certificates, out of which two were with cash rewards. 3. The respondents 5 to 7 are exparte whereas the respondents No.1 to contested the claim of the applicant. In the reply filed by them while admitting t age, dates of appointment, confirmation and promotion of the applicant as LHC it claimed that the applicant had earned 13 commendation certificates, out of which two were with cash rewards. It is further claimed that the Constables who have r passed the lower school course at PTS but are otherwise considered suitable m with the approval of the Deputy Inspector General of Police be promoted as He; Constables upto the maximum limit of 15% of the vacancies. This percentage furthers sub divided 5% vacancies are ear-marked to those Constables who ha put in 30 years of service and have reached at the age of 55 and 10% are for others. The applicant was considered against 10% exempted quota but the DF did not find him suitable in comparison with the other candidates as per the rules where under such promotion could be given on the basis of merit tempered with seniority. The respondents thus claim that the decision taken by the DPC giving/denying the promotions in question after due consideration in accordant with the Rules may be upheld and this original application may be dismissed. 4. The applicant filed rejoinder wherein he was denied the defence take in the reply and re-affirmed the averments as made out in the original application. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 6.It was contested by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant being senior to respondents 5 to 7 and having nothing adverse against him was entitled to be considered and promoted as Head Constable against 101 vacancies reserved for such constables who have not passed the lower school course at a Police Training School. 7. On the other hand the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the applicant was considered for promotion as Head Constable under the reserved quota and was not found suitable, therefore, he cannot claim promotion as of right. 8. 7. On the other hand the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the applicant was considered for promotion as Head Constable under the reserved quota and was not found suitable, therefore, he cannot claim promotion as of right. 8. There is no dispute that the applicant had not passed the lower school course at a Police Training School, therefore, his case for promotion could be considered only under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 13.8 of the Punjab Police Rules (hereafter referred to as the Rules) as are applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh and the relevant portion whereof reads as "........Selection grade Constables who have not passed the Lower School Course at the Police Training School but are otherwise considered suitable may, with the approval of the Deputy Inspector General, be promoted to Head Constable upto a maximum of 10 percent of vaccines." 9. It is clear on a bare reading of the rule (supra) that a selection grade Countable who has not passed the Lower School Course has to be considered for bringing his name on list-C that is to consider him for promotion as Head Constable under the aforesaid Rule and thus such a Constable has as right of consideration for promotion as Head Constable against 10 percent of the vacancies. However, on the basis of seniority alone he cannot claim the promotion as of right but he will have to qualify the suitability test as envisaged under the rule. Thus, it is open to the concerned authority not to bring on list-C and not to promote as Head Constable, a Constable if in its opinion he is not found fit for promotion. 10. The records of proceedings of the relevant DPCs produced, by the respondent pursuant to the order passed by us, reveal as follows. 11.The D.P.C. meeting in which the candidature of respondent No.5 amongst other was considered for promotion and he was found fit for promotion as exempted Head Constable was held on 20.6.1991 and pursuant to the recommendations of the D.P.C. he was promoted vide order dated 24.6.1991. The applicant did not call in question this promotion by seeking redressal/relief under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act within the prescribed period. The applicant did not call in question this promotion by seeking redressal/relief under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act within the prescribed period. He had challenged this promotion by the present original application which was filed on 23.3.1994 i.e. much after the expiry of one year from the date of accrual of cause of action. 12.The applicant though filed a representation Annexure P-1 dated 1.7.1993 against the promotion of respondents but the said representation against promotion of respondent No.5 was filed when the prescribed period of limitation to file original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act had already expired. Therefore filing of the said representation against promotion of respondent No.5 will not extend the period of limitation. Thus, the relief claimed qua promotion of respondent No.5 is clearly barred by time. 13. The D.P.C. meetings in which respondents No.6 and 7 were found fit for promotion from amongst the candidates including the applicant were held on 7.12.1992 and 28.6.1993. After taking into consideration a period of six months on account of pendency of representation Annexure A-1, the relief claimed qua these promotions is within time. 14.It clearly emerges from the proceedings of the DPC that the applicant was considered for promotion by the D.P.C. at both the meetings but in the former meeting respondent No.7 and in the latter respondent No.6 were found fit for promotion on the basis of good entries about their performance. The proceedings further reveal that the applicant had 13 good entries against 34 in case of respondent No.7 and 23, in case of respondent No.6. The perusal of records thus reveal that the D.P.C. went ahead with its job strictly on the criterion of suitability as provided under the rule. Therefore, the selection/recommendation by the DPC cannot be said to be "without jurisdiction, illegal and against the PPR 13-1 etc", as claimed by the applicant. 15. Be it stated that a selection process under the Rules cannot be held to be bad in law or vitiated unless shown to be mala-fide or arbitrary or discriminatory or contrary to the Rules and thereby violative of the right of the person calling it in question. In the case in hand it is not the case of the applicant himself that the selection process was vitiated by mala-fide or arbitrariness or discrimination. In the case in hand it is not the case of the applicant himself that the selection process was vitiated by mala-fide or arbitrariness or discrimination. As already held the process is shown to be in conformity with the relevant rule and thus not contrary to the Rules/Law. 16. In view of the above discussion and conclusions we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit and substance in this original application. As a result, this original application is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.