Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 682 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sita Ram Parmar

2012-10-05

DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJAY KAROL

body2012
Judgment Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The State by means of this appeal has laid challenge to the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 31st March, 2009 wherein the learned Single Judge held as follows:- “The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He was due for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. His case was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, however, the recommendation were kept in a sealed cover. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner have been closed and he has been exonerated. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and to promote the petitioner from the date his juniors were promoted. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. The petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. There shall, however, be no order to costs.” 2. It is pointed out by Shri Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State that it appears that complete facts were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The State in its reply had clearly taken the plea that the case of the writ petitioner for confirmation in the rank of Inspector was considered by the DPC on 10.10.1994 alongwith many other persons. There were adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 1.6.1990 to 21.9.1990 and he was not found fit for confirmation as Inspector. On the second occasion the DPC met in the year 1995 and this time due to some pending inquiries the case of the petitioner was kept in a sealed cover. After the exoneration of the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings he was confirmed in the post of Inspector. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been promoted as Dy. Superintendent of Police. The stand of the State is that the petitioner was not even a matriculate and was only 9th pass and since he did not fulfill the minimum educational qualification he could not have been promoted as Dy.S.P. It is not disputed that H.P.P.S Rules, 1973 were amended in the year 1994 but such amendment came into force only in February, 1995. As per this amendment the minimum educational qualification is B.A. No doubt, one time relaxation was given to only those who were at least matriculate. As per this amendment the minimum educational qualification is B.A. No doubt, one time relaxation was given to only those who were at least matriculate. The erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal has also considered this question and had come to the conclusion that the amendment of the rules came into effect only on 25.2.1995 when they were published in the Rajpatra and till that date even non matriculates would be eligible. The petitioner was confirmed as Inspector after June, 1995 and would become eligible to become Dy.S.P. after that date. By that time the rule stood amended and the petitioner could not have been promoted as Dy.S.P. 4. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and though the order of the learned Single Judge in so far as it relates to opening of the sealed cover is upheld, the benefit to the petitioner shall only be available with regard to his confirmation in the rank of Inspector and he cannot be promoted as Dy. S.P. since he did not fulfill the minimum educational qualifications. No costs.